Article 9 of the North Carolina State Constitution adopted in 1868 states, “The General Assembly shall provide by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of free public schools.” Very few people from then until now oppose the ideal of lifting the poor out of their circumstances through education. But this provision might have outlived its usefulness.
Broadly speaking, Article 9 is an expression of intent. It doesn’t say how “free public schools” should be best organized, or what counts as fulfillment of the state’s goals, or how student success is measured. Nor does it impose limits on the scope of functions that the legislature can require schools to offer.
Let me emphasize that good will toward educators and empathy for students are normal and commendable. The popular impulse to help uplift others in our community is completely natural, and voters regularly reflect that sentiment. What schools have become is another issue.
Here’s the problem. This constitutional mandate requires that a service be provided. The funding provides an ongoing enterprise with employees, buildings, supplies, and contracts. Operations like this must raise money, exercise control, and provide a corresponding benefit.
To keep such an enterprise from failing financially or operationally, voters at the ballot box are expected to elect representatives to dedicate resources with judgment and restraint. Wallets can’t be open to every claim made by beneficiaries of the school system because prudent taxpayers will eventually hit a limit and won’t tolerate budgets that don’t deliver the goods.
The reason is basic consumer choice. That means students and parents — past, present and future — might not get what they want from public school services. Consumers are the first to recognize a raw deal. When the quality of some goods or service is not worth the price, they leave. Consumers have the right to stop throwing away good money after bad.
The situation in North Carolina today is politically convoluted and often only pays lip service to parental choice. We have an intransigent governor bullying for public school funding, while previous judicial decisions seem to give judges power over funding. The legislature that votes on funding is in a constant state of delay as it balances a wide variety of preferences.
Although, the legislature eventually did the right thing, announcing this week an agreement to fully clear the Opportunity Scholarship waitlist, unfortunately, the decision came too late for many families. The school year is well under way, so many on the waitlist made their decision on where to send their children this school year based on the assumption the list wouldn’t be cleared.
Parents understandably recoil at the bitter partisan impasse that jeopardizes funding in a divided government, yet it’s clear that the main complaints are very basic. A large segment of parents, as consumers and voters, simply want better education and less managerial embrace of the weird fads cultivated by corporate activists.
Let me offer a different way of thinking about this problem. The state constitution implies a budget appropriation by the legislature. This is a guaranteed cash flow to an industry and all the businesses within that industry. Every business wants that and would do everything they possibly could to keep it. A steady flow of cash from buyers is the lifeblood of lobbyists.
Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of this dynamic has turned out to be corporate capture of our institutions of learning. In my view, the school system has been taken over for the purpose of garnering — and constantly expanding — the constitutionally guaranteed flow of cash. No one wants to let it go.
Parents feel like they are forced consumers, that they have been frozen out. Across the ideological spectrum, they have grievances: falling test scores, learning loss during the lockdowns, indoctrination, distraction, sexualization, and identity politics. Conservatives make the understandable case that they have an absolute right to prefer their own cultural norms and have those choices reflected as consumer options.
The main effect of a captured cash flow, typical of large unfocused institutions, is mission creep. Kids can’t learn without meals; we need to provide meals. Kids can’t get to class on time; we need to provide rides. Kids can’t get exercise; we need to get them moving. Kids need vaccinations; we need to give them shots. Kids want to express their sexuality; we need to let them explore new identities. Kids feel bad about their performance; inflate their accomplishments and confidence. You get the picture: no social cause is outside of the scope of a school’s potential mandate.
Voters in North Carolina are suffering from an endless doom loop of chronic consumer dissatisfaction. Where there is a lack of competition, and alternatives are pushed aside and maligned, the abuses and growth of administration will be business as usual in our schools.
Democratic partisans can’t scream for their right to other peoples’ money while denying parents the right to shop around for the best education for their children.
Article 9 works like handcuffs. If you like your school, you can keep it, but if you don’t like your school, you must keep it anyway.