In his Feb. 11 letter in the Bladen Journal, “Bill seems to be misguided,” Richard Swart addressed the negative consequences of draining money from public education, and wrote: “Worse, this legislation allows anyone to open a school in their home, whether or not they teach their own children. Instructors will only need a high-school diploma. No one else will know what’s being taught since there will, for all practical purposes, be no supervision.”
Mr. Swart closed with: “It’s hard to imagine how state legislators and Governor McCrory can think this bill will improve education in North Carolina. They certainly weren’t considering the negative consequences.”
Positive and negative are in the eyes of the beholder. Adequately educated citizens are less likely to become victims of clever political spin. Undereducated people are more easily led into voting against their own self-interests.
Please consider this example: Gov. McCrory’s appointed budget director’s personal wealth is apparently, if not obviously, due to poverty. The customers of his thrift stores, including his low-wage employees, cannot afford to shop at high-end stores.
As long as a segment of North Carolina’s population remains undereducated, and as a result underpaid, our budget director’s and his counterpart’s profits will remain stable, if not increase. If improvement in public education produces higher wage earners, and in turn more economically stable consumers, what will happen to businesses that rely on undereducated employees and economically distressed customers, including predatory lenders?
Will the allowance of high-school graduates teaching home-schooled students improve educational opportunity, or possibly perpetuate the profitability of businesses which profit from low-wage employees and consumers? Will inadequate home-school education be a “negative consequence,” or “profit security” for the in and out-of-state special interests who financed Gov. McCrory’s campaign?
Think about it, please.
Robert C. Currie Jr.