This week’s “Daily Journal” guest columnist is Dr. Terry Stoops, John Locke Foundation Director of Education Studies.
RALEIGH — Federal education programs account for only around 10 percent of North Carolina’s $12 billion public school operating budget. Even so, the federal government continues to assert considerable power in directing state-level education policy. In other words, money from the federal government ain’t cheap. That is why congressional elections matter.
Where do North Carolina’s candidates for U.S. Senate stand on major elementary and secondary education issues? Moreover, what do the candidates say (if anything) about the proper role of the federal government in an area that, according to the U.S. Constitution, is a state and local responsibility?
Elaine Marshall’s education platform has four main components, but the central theme is that the federal government should increase funding for public schools, starting with teachers.
Marshall wants to use federal funds or incentives to raise the starting salary of all pre-K-12 teachers to $40,000 a year, an idea advanced by the National Education Association. In North Carolina, increasing the first step of the state salary schedule to $40,000 would require adding $9,500 to the starting salary of the nearly 6,500 or so first-year teachers employed in public schools each year. According to these general assumptions, Marshall’s proposed increase would require local, state, and/or federal governments to add at least $61 million to teacher salaries for first-year teachers alone. This amount would multiply as each cohort of first-year teachers ascended the state salary schedule, but the size of the increase would depend on how the state restructured the steps on the teacher pay scale.
Marshall also supports “full funding” for the federal No Child Left Behind law. NCLB funding for North Carolina has increased by $270 million since 2001 and totaled over $500 million last year. My best guess is that “full funding” is an amount greater than $500 million, but it is unclear how much additional money would be required to support Marshall’s NCLB reform strategies. As part of that strategy, she wants NCLB to place less emphasis on standardized tests, presumably the tests used to determine if public schools meet or do not meet existing NCLB standards — reading and math. Marshall would like states to implement an accountability system that measures student progress. That is a sound idea, but states cannot measure progress without employing an extensive standardized testing program.
The North Carolina Association of Educators, an affiliate of the National Education Association, recommends Elaine Marshall for U.S. Senate.
Perhaps the best way to understand Sen. Richard Burr’s education platform is to examine an education bill he introduced in the Senate and subsequently touted on his campaign website. Burr designed the “Graduate for a Better Future Act” (S. 413) to improve struggling high schools, raise graduation rates, lower remediation rates in institutions of higher education, and better prepare graduates for life after high school. Under the provisions in the bill, the federal government would award competitive grants to school districts and charter schools via state agencies, nonprofit organizations, or education partnerships.
The reform measures proposed by the bill fall into four categories: coursework, guidance, work-study, and professional development. Burr’s bill attempts to address the lack of high school rigor and the larger, more serious failure of public high schools to prepare graduates adequately for college and work. High schools that receive funding would be required to offer a rigorous college-preparatory curriculum, dual-enrollment programs, and Advanced Placement and/or International Baccalaureate courses. For students who need to catch up, the bill proposes funding for accelerated remedial courses. All students would also be able to access work-study, internship, and community service programs. Like Marshall, Burr believes that states should use assessment systems that track student progress.
To be frank, college guidance programs, teacher advisers, and professional development programs mandated by the bill would be a waste of taxpayer money. There is no evidence that high school students, particularly those contemplating post-secondary education, are receiving inadequate services from their guidance counselors. The “teacher adviser” program sounds good in theory, but most teachers do not have time to serve as advisers or meet regularly with a group of advisees assigned to them. As for professional development for teachers, I question whether additional professional development programs would lead to significant improvements in subject area knowledge, instructional delivery, or classroom management.
While well intentioned, Burr’s bill does not address one of the sources of the problem — middle schools. High schools require comprehensive reform, but too many students begin to fall behind or lose interest in their studies in middle school. If we want to increase rigor and prepare students to succeed in the work force or higher education, states need to implement intensive middle school reform first.
The good news for Burr is that he gets an A for receiving an F from the National Education Association. He defied the will of the mighty teachers’ union by voting to continue funding for the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, a successful and extremely popular initiative that provided education vouchers to low-income families in the District of Columbia. He also voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also known as the stimulus or the “porkulus” bill.
Libertarian candidate Michael Beitler says, “The near-monopoly in education by government must end. A one-size-fits-all approach to education clearly has not worked. We must offer alternatives for children and young people; this means we must reward the entrepreneurial spirit in education. Students should be able to choose between competing schools.” Beitler’s education platform is more than just chutzpah. By promoting an educational free market, he envisions a radical change to the way our nation delivers schooling.
Marshall and Burr agree with Beitler that the one-size-fits-all approach does not work and that schools must offer some kinds of alternatives. However, Marshall and Burr would allow the existing public school system to dictate those alternatives, while Beitler would welcome entrepreneurship and school choice into the mix.