Perdue, like Jim Hunt and Mike Easley before her, wants to be the "education governor." She at least came up through education and has a degree in the subject, unlike her predecessors. But that background might be more of a handicap than an asset. Perdue is viewing educational improvement as synonymous with more spending on education. To improve education, to her thinking, means spending more for education.
Unfortunately, that strategy isn't always a solution. If lavish per-student spending were all that was needed for educational quality, District of Columbia schools would be the best in the country. Instead, they're arguably the worst. Just ask the Obamas, who are sending their girls to private school, just like the Bushes and the Clintons before them. If more money solved education problems, charter schools would all be failing. They operate on less money than public schools. Some fail, but some do quite well, and many have won the enthusiastic support of parents.
Spending more on public schools will not guarantee improvements in North Carolina's embarrassing dropout rates and test scores. Reducing spending on education by the same or a similar amount as other state departments won't necessarily make dropout rates and test scores worse. Perdue knows this, even if she won't admit it. She is promoting appearances, not substance, in proclaiming education spending will increase even in tough times.
The new governor has won generally favorable reviews on her performance thus far, and she deserves credit for saying North Carolina puts too much emphasis on school testing. But promising to raise school spending when there's no money to spend is wasted rhetoric. Legislative leaders are likely to, at best, keep education funding stable and, perhaps, curtail some ineffective spending on education.
Whatever they do, they should correct the misrepresentation that higher spending means better education. It doesn't.
Charter schools should be supported - they provide an education and experience that is sometimes lacking in public schools. Most teachers everywhere are dedicated to their students, but public schools are obviously scheduled differently - it is the benefit of teaching and learning to a student's interests and needs is what makes a good charter school more wholistic and unique. As a former teacher of photography at a charter school for NC's After School Program , I can say for sure that the experience in a charter school atmosphere for both teachers and students can be enlightening. For instance, the charter school classes would take a field trip almost every week to area museums, parks, picnics and programs - this might happen once or twice a year at a public school if they're lucky. Experts and special guests constantly visited the classrooms to present educational programs, cultural displays, vocational specialties or the occasional check-up; former Sen. Elizabeth Dole visited one day. Charter schools bring a positive option for parents, educators and most importantly - a student's life.
ReplyDeletePersonally, i would have preferred charter schools if they were more abundant in my elementary years - as the public school system and the experience at the time was a strange and constrictive nightmare.
....great post Gray. A lot of common sense in this attitude.
ReplyDeleteI was listening to the dr dean adell show and he brough up a school in CA which helped kids who the regular schools could not help.
http://www.nawaacademy.org/ExploreNawa/AboutNawaAcademy.html
if I had kids that seemed wayward i would ship them off in a heartbeat. We need dif kinds of education. nothing comes in a box anymore. Sad our leaders are blind to the options.