Practically every candidate for state or local office has raised education as an issue, but it’s a non-candidate wearing the robe of justice in Raleigh who may have the most significant impact on education in North Carolina this election year.

With his ruling Thursday that all 4-year-olds at risk of failure must have access to pre-kindergarten programs, Superior Court Judge Howard Manning Jr. dramatically shifted the focus of the education debate. While the expansion of pre-school programs hasn’t been ignored — it’s a major part of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mike Easley’s education plans — it has been overshadowed this year by talk of higher education bonds, teacher competency tests, GOP candidate Richard Vinroot’s modest voucher proposal, the phaseout of social promotions, end of grade testing and other issues.

This ruling isn’t mere campaign talk, however, with vague revisions that might or might not materialize somewhere in the future. It potentially reshapes the state’s public schools, costing millions of dollars and affecting up to 40,000 youngsters, with repercussions for every district in the state. We don’t know the ultimate impact because the ruling is part of a broader case challenging the way the state funds its schools. That case began in 1994, when five poor school systems filed a lawsuit arguing that students were not receiving equal access to educational opportunities because of poverty in those districts.

Two weeks ago, Manning issued the first of three separate rulings. That ruling seemed to support the status quo, with the judge finding no fatal flaws in the state’s educational delivery system — the curriculum, the standards for teachers, the ABC accountability system and the per-pupil method of funding. The initial vindication of the system makes this ruling all the more stunning — and raises new apprehensions about the judge’s upcoming decision on the adequacy and fairness of the funding system itself.

Some legislative leaders are already making noises about an appeal. That’s a premature response, however, because legislators and education officials don’t yet know whether they’re dealing with a costly but limited restructuring of the pre-school program, or a complete revamping of the funding formula. Legislators and education authorities also need time to digest Manning’s comments on where the current system falls short.

His ruling focuses on early intervention for at-risk students — those coming from impoverished backgrounds or from households where parents are poorly educated — because that is the best strategy for improving their educational opportunities. And there’s little debate about that — it’s the cornerstone of the Smart Start and other existing pre-school programs that already target those disadvantaged youngsters.

Manning’s ruling reinforces the importance of giving those students the same opportunities to succeed as more fortunate youngsters. Before anyone rejects the judge’s conclusions out of hand, they should ask themselves what court of appeal those at-risk children can go to.