N. C. education and The Judge | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    Here we go again with Judge Manning weighing in on the legislature's deliberations as if it was any of his business as a judge. As a taxpayer, yes; but as a judge, no. Not the deliberations. Clearly, the court should not interfere with the legislative process before the action of the legislature is implemented and a party with standing contests the action. What is interesting about the whole situation is that it would seem that he is going to get away with it. He tried the Leandro case, decided it, and then apparently bestowed upon himself continuing authority to monitor education funding in North Carolina seemingly forever after. He seems to be operating well outside the "balance/separation of powers" envisioned by the framers of our constitution. In any case, it is certainly time to get him out of the legislative process. Perhaps someone needs to challenge his "right" to appoint himself the "Protector of Education in North Carolina" with seemingly plenary powers. Either that, or perhaps we should do away with the Legislature. Clearly we don't need a legislature as long as we have judges like Judge Manning who seem to be willing to legislate from the bench. Yeah, right...

    And, of course, Gov. Bev. Is "piling on" with her recent pronouncement that everybody that shows up at the door for pre-school (and all that goes with it) gets in - free. Do you suppose it's true that the Gov. is free to ignore a veto override?? If so, another reason to get rid of the legislature. Just think of the money we could save. Of course, it would have a negative impact on our unemployment situation - but who cares - after all it's politicians who would be put out of work. But that's another subject for another day.

    In exercising his self assigned powers, Judge Manning has decided that we aren't spending enough on education, specifically our pre-school baby sitting program, More at Four, so he orders more spending on the schools. One thing that we do not have to wonder about is whether or not he has read the DHHS (Department of Health & Human Services) study that documents the fact that the benefits of pre-school programs like "More at Four" are largely gone by the end of the first or second grade; he apparently hasn't. But then the judge may not care about facts, as long as he can dictate how it's going to be. To read the Executive Summary of the DHHS report issued in January 2010, go to: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/impact_study/executive_summary_final.pdf .

    What we can wonder about is whether he is also going to tell the legislature where to get the money to take care of his desires. Maybe from the Golden Leaf slush fund?? Or the Global Trans-Park handout?? Or high speed rail??

    What a deal. You sit in the catbird seat and dictate how things are going to be. No need for a rationale, no need to consider alternatives, no need to even worry about effectiveness or efficiency of the spending that is being dictated. No need to even think about lost opportunity costs, No need to worry about the long suffering tax payers; just issue an edict that spending needs to be increased for pre-school kids.

    We can only wonder where the esteemed judge comes out on Charter Schools since we have heard no rationale for his decisions. What we get from him is "More of the same; period. We can only wonder why he did not dictate, or even seem to consider, an expansion of the number of Charter Schools allowed in the state. We also are left to wonder why he did not direct that a voucher program be implemented, even though that could provide a superior education to the one for which he is demanding more spending; and it would do so at a lower cost. Maybe he seeks to continue and enhance the support of the Teachers' Union. A Superior Court Judge who, after all, is elected on a non-partisan basis wouldn't stoop to that level - or would he?? Well, maybe not...

    And how about school vouchers?? Vouchers that would allow parents who truly care about their children's education to send those children to private schools. In Beaufort County I am told that the cost of sending a child to a high quality private school runs about $4,000 per year which is about half as much as the per pupil cost in our public schools. Suppose parents received vouchers to cover the cost or sending their children to private schools?? It seems as though that is certainly worth looking at as a way to reduce the burden on the long suffering taxpayers. Of course that may not be such a good idea because I doubt that many of the private schools around here are "unionized". Surely an education obtained from a non-union school will not be as good as one obtained from a unionized school; just as aircraft manufactured in a non-union factory in South Carolina would not be as good as one manufactured in a union plant in Washington State; or so say the union bosses. Of course.....

    And, speaking of unions; it is interesting that the unions which purport to look out for individual employees are pushing for so called "Card Check". In case you don't remember, "card check" is a union organizing tool that does little more than take away an individual's right to a secret ballot when it comes to deciding whether they want to be represented by the union. Talking about how the unions look out for individual members, a long standing union policy that has been attacked, but never with any success, is the notion that the union decides where their political contributions go. That unquestionably has some members' dues bankrolling candidates that they do not support and would rather not help. The bosses decide for the troops. Democracy in action in the labor union movement; and they wonder why their membership dwindles. But I digress ...

    It is bad enough when folks seeking to be elected to the Executive or Legislative branch of our government kowtow to special interests (like the teachers' union) but when people who presumably are elected in non-partisan races begin to kowtow to those same interests, or create the appearance of it, we are left to wonder what "non-partisan" means to those candidates. When "non-partisan" begins to look "partisan", it may be time to begin thinking about a change.

    D'ya think??