Circuit Judge Thomas W. Cooper Jr. ruled Dec. 29 on a trial that began in July 23 and featured more than 100 days of testimony from education officials and state lawmakers. School districts suing the state contended that poor, rural districts failed to meet the needs of students because of lack of safe and adequate schools, lack of qualified, experienced teachers and lack of funding from the state.

While Cooper decided in favor of the districts, he did so on a much narrower issue. Cooper acknowledged that the state does not provide students in eight rural school districts with the opportunity to receive a minimally adequate education -- but only because it does not sufficiently fund early childhood education.

That ruling apparently gave both sides the latitude they needed to declare victory. Lawyers for both the state and the school districts said they saw no need at this time to appeal the decision.

The judge's finding that the state has been negligent in supporting early childhood education in the poorer districts is a boost for those districts. The state Legislature now must find a way to provide free preschool to at-risk students as young as 3 years old.

But the state avoided having to completely revamp its school funding system, upgrade dilapidated school buildings or provide new incentives to attract veteran teachers to rural school districts.

Improvements in early childhood education certainly will benefit those districts. Many children who fall behind their peers in kindergarten and the early primary grades never manage to catch up and require remedial education throughout their schooling. Many end up dropping out of school. Early intervention can help disadvantaged students start on a more equal footing with their classmates.

But the judge's ruling does not address other serious inadequacies, including school buildings and teacher salaries, faced by poor districts. The ruling suggests that the state meets its minimal legal responsibilities by ensuring minimally adequate buildings and salaries for teachers in those districts, and that the court will not force the Legislature to do more.

In one respect, the limited nature of Judge Cooper's ruling could be a blessing. It could mean South Carolina can escape the complex, often frustrating monitoring process that drags on for years when courts orchestrate what should be left to local government officials. The desegregation case involving Charlotte schools is a case in point.

Nevertheless, that doesn't mean the state should be satisfied with meeting its minimal obligation to school children as required by the state constitution. That doesn't mean South Carolina should accept mediocrity in its educational system simply because the courts failed to require higher standards.

The sad state of many schools in poor districts has been well documented. School districts with a wealthier tax base would not tolerate buildings with leaking roofs, cracking walls, overcrowded classrooms and other deficiencies. The same could be said for the quality of instruction in many rural school districts in South Carolina.

Yes, the state now must find more than $100 million to improve the quality of early childhood education in disadvantaged rural districts. But lawmakers also should be asking themselves whether that is enough, whether better pre-school education alone will give every student in the state access to a minimally adequate education.

Until that is guaranteed, this will remain only a partial victory for the school districts involved in this lawsuit.