MANNING — Lawyers defending the Legislature against a lawsuit pressing for greater state aid to poor schools concluded their case relying on testimony that spending more money has little correlation to academic success.

The defense’s rebuttal relied on eight witnesses. They included a former Richland 1 principal who now specializes in shaping public education policy for the Legislature, the chairman of the House budget-writing committee and six college-level educators who study and research school reform, education finances and related public policy issues.

Several of the experts, all of whom live in other states, had previous experience testifying in similar trials elsewhere, where courts have been called on to settle money disputes between local schools and state governments.

Picking witnesses, defense attorney Bobby Stepp said, “is driven by what the issues are. It’s come down to who is the most qualified. Our witnesses have national reputations on this subject.”

Stepp noted the defense also submitted several dozen depositions for the judge to consider.

Lawyers for eight plaintiff districts suing state government have called 58 witnesses, a combination of local educators, a renowned state historian, state-level education policy-makers and a sprinkling of out-of-state experts offering supportive testimony.

Defense witnesses, for the most part, acknowledged schools in high-poverty communities face monumental challenges delivering effective instruction to academically struggling students. They insisted, however, that their research — some done collaboratively — has led them to conclude that providing more money to low-performing schools does not guarantee better grades.

Educators in some of the state’s poorest communities — many in eastern South Carolina adjacent to the Interstate 95 corridor — dispute that view in light of school reform, rigorous academic standards and high-stakes testing.

The trial, so far, has played out in 98 days over 14 months and now goes into recess while Circuit Judge Thomas W. Cooper Jr. looks to juggle his calendar to schedule testimony from several more plaintiff witnesses.

Cooper then faces the task of deciding whether children in Allendale, Dillon 2, Florence 4, Hampton 2, Jasper, Lee, Marion 7 and Orangeburg 3 are getting a “minimally adequate education.”

The state Supreme Court ruled in April 1999 that S.C.’s constitution guarantees each child that opportunity. The 4-1 majority defined “minimally adequate education” as an ability to read, write, do math, grasp basic scientific principles and citizenship responsibilities in a safe building.

That decision returned the case to Cooper’s court.

Defense attorneys insist lawmakers have a reputation of providing generous support to make a “minimally adequate education” available to everyone. The responsibility to learn, defense witnesses said, falls to students, their parents and educators.

“Our objective was to create a factual record of the actual conditions in these schools,” Stepp said.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers insist poor, rural schools are hampered by weak local economies unable to generate enough taxes to pay for remedial instruction that many underachieving students need.

To underscore that point, plaintiffs’ lawyers Friday summoned Marion 7 superintendent Everette Dean back to the stand. Dean, who testified in August 2003, explained how cash-strapped schools in Britton’s Neck and Rains-Centenary struggle to meet expenses.

Dean said Friday the $4.8 million in local, state and federal funds his district receives limits his flexibility in putting money toward higher salaries for experienced educators. Marion 7’s 78 teachers are paid $300 more than the state’s minimum salary scale.

Defense attorney Jack Barnes confronted Dean with evidence showing Marion 7 opted not to shift money earmarked for specific programs into general instructional use, such as salaries, that the Legislature OK’d during a budget crisis several years ago.

Reach Robinson at (803) 771-8482 or brobinson@thestate.com.