## Facts

- West Virginia education officials and the West Virginia School Building Authority (SBA) pursued a statewide school-consolidation approach that favored larger, consolidated facilities and the closure of smaller schools.
- Circleville School’s high-school program in rural Pendleton County was slated for closure, with students reassigned to a larger school farther away.
- Parents, students, and a nonprofit organization challenged consolidation-related funding and decisionmaking affecting Circleville.
- Plaintiffs alleged that consolidation would impose long daily bus rides and reduce students’ ability to participate in extracurricular and community activities.
- Plaintiffs claimed SBA funding practices created a pro-consolidation bias that disadvantaged small rural communities, amounting to unconstitutional discrimination tied to residence or wealth and violating the state constitutional guarantees of education and equal protection.
- The circuit court agreed, treated the alleged bias as requiring a compelling state justification, and granted relief effectively blocking the closure and related funding scheme.
- State officials and the county board appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether SBA consolidation-related funding practices and the closure of Circleville’s high-school program violated the West Virginia Constitution’s education guarantee and equal-protection principles through residence- or wealth-based discrimination.
2. Whether SBA’s policies and procedures for facilities funding and consolidation exceeded or conflicted with West Virginia statutes governing school construction and consolidation.
3. What level of judicial scrutiny applies to consolidation-oriented educational policy decisions challenged as impairing equal educational opportunity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the circuit court.
- The court held plaintiffs did not prove that the consolidation-related funding decisions or the Circleville closure denied students a constitutionally required “thorough and efficient” or equal education.
- The court rejected the circuit court’s use of a “compelling state interest” requirement for SBA’s consolidation preference on this record.
- The court found no adequate basis to conclude SBA acted beyond statutory authority or contrary to statutory mandates.
- The circuit court’s relief was vacated, allowing the challenged consolidation and funding policies to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Courts owe substantial deference to legislative and administrative choices in education policy and facilities funding, intervening only for clear constitutional or statutory violations.
- The state constitutional right to education does not make every consolidation or funding dispute subject to strict scrutiny; a plaintiff must show a concrete denial of equal educational opportunity or failure to meet the “thorough and efficient” minimum.
- Allegations of burdens associated with distance, transportation, or community impacts do not establish a constitutional violation absent proof that educational quality or access falls below constitutional requirements or that students are denied equal opportunity in a legally cognizable way.
- Agency criteria and procedures for school-building funding will be upheld when they fall within broadly conferred legislative discretion and are not shown to be ultra vires.

## Conclusion

The court set aside an injunction against school consolidation, holding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate unconstitutional discrimination or denial of a thorough and efficient, equal education, and failed to show that the SBA’s consolidation-oriented funding practices violated governing statutes.


Pendleton Citizens for Cmty. Schs. v. Marockie, 203 W. Va. 310, 507 S.E.2d 673 (W. Va. 1998)