Well John, here in our third installment of Raising the Issue, I?m happy that we?ve picked another simple, uncomplicated subject that should be easy to resolve in a few pithy paragraphs.

In all seriousness, the question posed here is an important one that requires close and careful analysis. As with far too many fundamental issues of public policy, much of what North Carolina does (and has done) in the education arena is a function of reactive, piecemeal decision making rather than sober, comprehensive planning that determines where we are and where we need to go.

In the current budget debate, one need only look at the proposal in the House budget to ?fund? third grade class size with a $50 million appropriation, while simultaneously imposing $27 million in ?discretionary cuts? on the same local school districts that would be expected to shrink classes. This directive would come on top of $44 million in discretionary cuts in 2003-?04.

While North Carolina?s system of school finance is plagued by many shortcomings, most of them can be traced to one basic flaw in the state?s education budgeting process: Rather than honestly assessing what the state needs to spend in order to accomplish the goals that have been identified (either by state law, the state Constitution, or, in the case of the No Child Left Behind Act, a binding agreement with the federal government), and then making an intentional choice about what and what not to fund, North Carolina goes about things in reverse order. Instead of first determining what they need, lawmakers first determine what they have to spend on education and then work backwards to try to divide the allotted pot of money as best they can.

The results are predictable. Each year, state leaders express their commitment to supporting education, followed soon thereafter by an statement of regret that budget constraints make it impossible to fully fund education initiatives that would benefit student learning such as smaller class sizes or targeted services for at-risk students. This is not a problem of mere theory or semantics. Because North Carolina has never established a concrete baseline of what it would really take to make its education system work in optimal fashion, it is much harder for experts, advocates, journalists, and policymakers themselves to measure real progress.

The bottom line on the question of education funding, therefore, is that, no, North Carolina is almost assuredly not appropriating enough money. Our needs ? for high quality teachers, more and better facilities, technology improvements, and a host of targeted services for low-income children, children with limited English proficiency and special needs, and many others at-risk of failure are evident ? particularly (PDF) in poorer rural counties. Our Supreme Court has ruled in the Leandro case that all state students have a constitutional right to a ?sound basic education.? The federal government has established a 10-year time frame (with which we are obligated to comply) for assuring that no child is left behind.

What we need first and foremost, however, before we appropriate such funds, is a plan for getting from point A to point B. To date, 33 states have conducted (or are conducting) comprehensive ?adequacy studies? in which panels of experts ?cost out? what it would take for their states to provide an adequate education system (i.e., a sound basic education). As more and more of these studies are confirming (and as many elite public and private schools have proved for decades), the process of building excellent schools is, more often than not, a question of resources. We know how to build successful schools and what it takes to assist even the hardest to reach, at-risk child. What we lack, is a concrete plan and the political will to make it happen.

North Carolina should join the group of 33 as soon as possible and get on about the business of building a first rate system of public education