Circuit Judge Thomas W. Cooper Jr. sifted through 15 months of exhaustive testimony on the state of education in eight of this state's most rural, poorest counties to reach what likely will stand as a landmark decision on education in this state. While the 162-page order found that the state's education system meets the constitutional test in most of the challenged areas, the judge flunked the state's efforts to educate the districts' poorest, youngest children. Rather than fighting that victory for the districts, the Legislature should get on with a task that will benefit every South Carolinian.

While some are questioning the judge's authority to delve into an area outside the existing school system, he found, in effect, that the lack of early childhood intervention among those in poverty deprives a child of the opportunity to later get a "minimally adequate" education - the constitutional test.

Judge Cooper zeroed in on what he described as "the question that is at the heart of this case: Although schools cannot reasonably be expected to eliminate poverty, can schools address in specific ways the effects of poverty on achievement, and if so, must they do so as a matter of constitutional obligation?"

His answer: The constitution specifically cites the state's obligation is to "each child" and that means "children born to poverty as surely it does to those born to affluence. The state's obligation to provide an opportunity for a minimally adequate education is, in no way, reduced to children born to poverty. It is, in fact, enhanced for such children. The indisputable relationship between poverty and diminished academic achievement and the magnified impact of poverty on the abilities of the very youngest, the most vulnerable, form the basis of the obligation.

"Should the impact of poverty not be addressed at an early age, in the educational process, there would be no constitutionally mandated 'opportunity' ... The court therefore finds that the education clause of the S.C. Constitution ... imposes an obligation upon the General Assembly and the State of South Carolina to create an educational system that overcomes, to the extent that is educationally possible, the effects of poverty on the very young, to the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten, to enable them to begin the educational process in a more equal fashion to those born outside of poverty."

Among the obvious first questions are how much the creation of such a system will cost and whether the mandate extends only to the eight rural counties involved in the lawsuit that started nearly 12 years ago. The fact is that the state could have been in for a much more costly tab had the judge ruled with the districts on several other major challenges.

Instead, he found that the educational facilities in the districts are safe and meet the "minimally adequate" test even though some clearly are in need of maintenance or repair. He also determined that the state's testing provides at least minimally qualified teachers who are paid competitive salaries in terms of the Southeastern average. The judge's order deals with those areas in great detail, providing information for each school regarding facilities, student test scores and issues of teacher competency. The ruling should be required reading for all citizens interested in the law and facts involving education funding in this state.

The order notes, for example, that since the lawsuit was launched, education funding has nearly doubled for the districts that brought the suit and that the per pupil expenditures in those districts, with the exception of Dillon, exceed the state average. Indeed, the judge found little relationship between the facilities themselves and student test scores, noting that students in some of the buildings in the worst condition produced some of the better test scores. That doesn't mean the judge felt there was no need for improvement. But the task, handed to him by the S.C. Supreme Court, was to determine factually whether the state is meeting the constitution's "minimal" test in the challenged areas.

Indeed, in calling for an improved early childhood education system, the judge pointed to the importance of focusing education spending on specific needs. "Prior history has taught us that the allocation of funds alone" - huge gains in per-pupil expenditures - "is no assurance that educational levels of achievement will be raised," he wrote. He concluded: "Such early intervention not only makes educational and humanitarian sense, it also makes economic sense. The testimony in this record of experts, educators and legislators alike is that the dollars spent in early childhood intervention are the most effective expenditures in the educational process."

The Legislature now has a two-pronged education challenge. Not only must it decide whether to appeal or begin implementing the judge's order, it will begin debate in a few weeks on a tax relief proposal that calls for an increase in the sales tax to eliminate the local school tax for homeowners.

While there had been earlier predictions that, whatever the decision, the case would wind up back before the high court, by Friday the odds seemingly had improved that the state's longest lasting lawsuit has ended with a decision that should be willingly embraced.