An effort to overhaul South Carolina's tax structure will go forward regardless of whether a court rules that the state's education funding system is illegal, the plan's two framers said.

One week from today, a state circuit court judge will hear a 10-year-old lawsuit brought by some of the state's poorest school districts, challenging how the state funds education. The court could order legislators to make sweeping changes to the way the state finances education.

That court case comes to trial on the heels of a major tax reform proposal, introduced late in the last legislative session by House Majority Leader Rick Quinn, R-Richland, and state Rep. Vincent Sheheen, D-Kershaw.

Something needs to change, Sheheen said last week.

"There are significant portions of this state where the state is not doing what it needs to do," he said.

The current funding system requires the state to pay roughly 70 percent of the cost of public schools, a figure it struggles to meet. Local school districts pick up the remaining 30 percent.

Quinn and Sheheen propose to shift local taxpayers' responsibility for paying for education completely over to the state by increasing the statewide sales tax from 5 percent to 7 percent, excluding food and medicine.

The lawmakers' proposal also would eliminate some exemptions from the sales tax and eliminate the portion of local property taxes that pay for school operating expenses. It also would raise teacher pay to the national average. Homeowners still would pay property taxes for school construction and city and county services.

"The strength of our plan is the money goes back to the districts based on the (number of) students, as opposed to some other formulas they have," Quinn said.

The proposal came at the close of a contentious legislative session dominated by debates over various education spending proposals. That debate climaxed with an April 16 rally of educators, parents and students at the State House.

The session characterized South Carolina's decades-long struggle with financing what might be its most fundamental responsibility -- the education of its children.

Efforts by Democrats to raise the cigarette and sales taxes to generate additional education dollars were defeated.

Attempts by Bob Walker, a Spartanburg Republican and chairman of the House Subcommittee on Education, to shift funding away from higher education and decrease incentive pay for nationally certified teachers to help pay school operating costs also received the cold shoulder.

In the end, state funding for education was set at roughly $1,777 a student, thanks in part to a one-time infusion of $44 million in federal money. That figure falls short of the $2,201 per student that educators say was needed.

Lawmakers say they are not shortchanging education and shifting the state's burden of paying for education to local taxpayers.

"The constitution says our obligation is to provide an opportunity to learn, and it's a minimum opportunity at that," Walker said. "I think we've far exceeded that."

But educators say districts are laying off teachers and cutting services just to keep the schoolhouse doors open.

One of the reasons there's so much discussion is that it's no longer clear what the bare minimum cost is of educating a child. There's also disagreement on what a basic education is.

In 1999, the S.C. Supreme Court defined a minimally adequate education as one that included English skills, math and science, social studies and economics and vocational skills.

These days, communities expect more -- a computer in every classroom and competitive sports at all levels, for example. The state and federal governments demand strict adherence to high standards. All are expensive.

Right now, districts in rural areas with lower property tax bases receive a higher proportion of state money, although not enough, according to the districts that are suing.

Those districts say the state is not meeting its obligations under the Education Finance Act of 1977, which created the structure.

"In 1977, we started out with an excellent concept," said Robert Scarborough, executive director of the S.C. Association of School Administrators.

But educators insist the state's annual increases have fallen short of what the law requires.

The Quinn-Sheheen plan aims to address that alleged inequity, regardless of whether the court rules the structure is illegal.

"Just because it is legal, doesn't make it right," Quinn said.

Some education leaders, who say they would favor decreasing the burden on local property owners to pay for education, worry about shifting from that stable tax base to sales taxes, which go up and down with the economy.

"(It) sounds very attractive, but the General Assembly does not have a very good record of maintaining the level of funding that's necessary to provide children with an education," Scarborough said.

Scarborough said the state inevitably would be unable to provide all the money needed. Districts then would be left underfunded, without the option of raising local property taxes to make up the deficit, he said.

He said he might support the plan if modified to give local officials the flexibility to raise taxes.

The arguments in the courtroom beginning next week might give the Quinn-Sheheen tax reform proposal a boost -- or force it from the radar.

Quinn is optimistic the plan will pass. About 25 House members, Republicans and Democrats, have agreed to co-sponsor the plan, he said.

"I'm very encouraged," he said. "I don't have a crystal ball, but from the feedback from other members, I think it has a great chance of passing."

Staff writer Bill Robinson contributed to this report.