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.
Posts
