News-Record.com

The North Carolina Piedmont Triad's top go-to source for News
A service of the News & Record, Greensboro, North Carolina

Home

Capital Beat

« Obama and Burr | Main | School bus stop arm camera bill to be filed »

Charters schools, Jordan Lake and other stories that might actually interest you

There are two items from me in this Sunday's paper.

The first idea came when I heard President Barack Obama mention charter schools in his speech to Congress last week. North Carolina has charter schools but the legislature seems kind of conflicted about them. From that story:

State law limits to 100 the number of charter schools, which are funded by tax dollars but are run by private boards. That reflects a certain legislative ambivalence toward the schools, which were created under a 1996 law but never fully embraced by the General Assembly's top voices on education.

Despite Obama's call to increase funding and "help create new, high-quality charter schools," N.C. lawmakers remain cautious.

"I don't, at this point in time, support raising the cap on the number of charter schools," said Rep. Maggie Jeffus , a Guilford County Democrat and former teacher who is involved in education policy in the General Assembly. She said some charters she had visited had excellent programs, but others struggled to keep pace with expectations in academics and management.

Click here for the whole thing.

-=-=-=

Next up is an update on the Jordan Lake rules. (Background.) This is one of those subjects we get to write about every so often because it's important, but not one that moves at a terribly fast clip. The real news from the story was that the parties trying to reach some resolution on the rules were on the precipice of negotiation. Or as I used a lot more words to say::

Lawmakers now will have to decide whether rules put forward by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources will achieve their goals or merely cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars during a time they can least afford it.

"I expect it will be contentious because it has already been contentious," said Rep. Lucy Allen, a Franklin County Democrat who chairs the House environment committee. "We hear all of the objections coming from the communities up that way."

Although state law gives opponents of regulations a clear path to appeal to the General Assembly, it gives lawmakers little guidance on how to settle disputes. Allen has filed one of a handful of bills that would wipe the Jordan Lake rules from the books, although few expect that could pass as it is.

Lawmakers like Allen are looking for parties on all sides to come to some accord. At least some of various groups say they're ready to start talking, even if they're not sure when or in what format.

"I'm optimistic," said Steven Levitas , a lawyer and former deputy secretary in the Department of Environment. He has been hired by Durham to help negotiate a compromise and is one of the point people for all the groups opposing the rules.

As described by Levitas and others involved, there have been discussions between various parties one-on-one. The trick now is to get representatives for all concerned in the same room.

Click here if you're trying to cure some sort of sleep disorder.

-=-=-=-=-

And believe it or not, there was even more news in the state last week than President Barack Obama coming to visit. A sampling:

Enjoy your Sunday.

Comments (4)

To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.

scharrison said:

I was going to post this comment directly on your story page Mark, but it may get more "looks" here on your blog:

The Jordan Rules are not just about upstream (and poorer) counties shouldering the costs of improving drinking water for those served by Jordan Lake, it's about making some long-needed changes to the way we approach development and the stewardship of our natural resources.

I talked about some of this here:

http://bluenc.com/water-quality-battle-looms

but I also wanted to address a few of the things mentioned in your article, like this one:

'"The problems with the rules are dire," said Marlene Sanford , the president of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition.

As she reads the rules, they could require city governments to go into existing neighborhoods and condemn land for water-cleaning projects such as detention ponds.'

Developers have known about the need to set aside acreage for things like detention ponds and other stormwater-control techniques for decades, but they've ignored them because they wanted to sell every last 1/3 acre lot and build on it.

Make no mistake-the realtors don't give a hoot about the possibility of cities having to fix old neighborhoods, they're worried that future land they want to exploit will have set-asides devoted to best-practice methods for protecting our water supply.

'He acknowledges that opponents are somewhat under the gun. If the legislature adjourns without taking action on the rules, they will go into effect as-is. "We need to get a bill passed this session," he said.'

If cities and developers were just as "energized" about protecting our natural resources as they are resisting needed change, the Federal government and the NCDWQ wouldn't have to take the steps they have.

I'll say it again: stormwater runoff is the single biggest cause of water pollution in our state. If we don't have the courage to start solving this problem now, when will we? When our lakes and rivers are no longer habitable for fish or safe for us to drink?

jbristol said:

Charter Schools: your article had the following: "I don't, at this point in time, support raising the cap on the number of charter schools," said Rep. Maggie Jeffus , a Guilford County Democrat and former teacher who is involved in education policy in the General Assembly. She said some charters she had visited had excellent programs, but others struggled to keep pace with expectations in academics and management." Mark, frequently in news articles, all over the state, there are frequent criticisms by "experts" aimed at charters' performance. PLEASE, challenge back a question at them to validate the public school record of excellence or lack there of. In otherwrds 'who's calling the kettle back?' These experts distract the reader with put-downs of alternatives as some kind of perverted defense for the FAILED status quo. Please don't let them get away with that. Thanks.

Mark binker said:

scharrison: appreciate the comment. While I think your take on the environmental need is complete legitimate, I also think concerns about the cost/problems involved with putting the rules into place are legit too. It may, in fact, be far easier than the opponents are saying to do what's required. But I've given the rules a read (albeit, one from a non-lawyer) and I'm not sure I wouldn't have my knickers in the twist if I were on the business end of that regulation.

jbristol: I don't think anyone is going to make a case that public schools are doing all that they should. But there's evidence (including a recent study by the non-partisan and well-regard N.C. Center for Public Policy Research) that charters AS A GROUP are not doing as well as public schools. Some, I will grant you, have very good graduation rates and test scores and what have you. But others don't and as a collective, they're not performing as well on the measures we apply to all public schools. Is there a case to be made that those measures aren't looking at the right things? Maybe, but most of the charter school administrators I've ever talked to start the conversation up front with something like "We have to live up to two standards, what the state requires in terms of testing and then our own..."

scharrison said:

Oh, I can understand why they've got their knickers in a twist, Mark. These rules will place limitations and requirements on their development plans which should have been in place since the mid-1980's.

Guilford County alone is responsible for runoff that feeds into (I think) 9 different watersheds, and the County Commissioners have failed to take any substantial steps to force developers to adhere to best-practices to abate runoff. Frankly, I'm surprised they even take the time to look at plats, since they've decided to allow developers to do whatever they want, anyway.

This is going to be a heavily contested issue. But considering the millions the realtors spend on campaign contributions and media buys, that comes as no surprise to me. But if those local governments are concerned about how much this may cost taxpayers, they should also be willing to explain to taxpayers that they haven't been doing their jobs properly.

The Commissioners aren't there to represent only business, they're there to represent everybody. If Guilford County ends up being fined for non-compliance of the Phase II rules, the responsibility for that rests on the shoulders of those who chose to do the wrong thing, instead of the right thing.

Due to recent automated spamming attacks on our blogs, we are temporarily requiring commenters to authenticate themselves via TypeKey® before posting comments to any News & Record blog in order to prevent denials of service. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.

Post a comment

Users who post comments to this blog tacitly agree to observe the News & Record Online Service Terms of Use and Content Submission Agreement. Comments which do not adhere to the terms of this agreement may be removed and the submitter may be banned from further participation. Please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page to report abuse of this feature.

Explore This Blog

My latest updates from Twitter

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Search

Search

Channels
Font Size
Tools
Question, Comment or Suggestion? Please contact us.

News & Record and NRinteractive

200 E. Market Street, Greensboro, NC 27401 (336) 373-7000 (800) 553-6880
1813 N. Main Street, High Point, NC 27262 (336) 883-4422
203 E. Harris Place, Eden, NC 27288 (336) 627-1781
4213 S. Church Street, Burlington, NC 27215 (336) 449-7064

Copyright (C) 2008 News & Record and Landmark Communications, Inc.