News-Record.com

School funding seems to dominate our public policy debates. In the state legislature, the issue fuels the push for a lottery. The Leandro case, swirling through our court system for more than a decade, already has pried lose more money for low-wealth systems - and we ain't seen nothing yet. And here in Guilford County, you can bet that the question again will create consternation on the board of commissioners come budget time.

This week, the school board took away federal Title I money from Dudley, Smith, Andrews and High Point Central high schools, filling some or all of the gap with local funds.

(Time out for a mea culpa: I made an error in an editorial I wrote for Thursday's edition, writing that Dudley and Smith will see a net loss of funds. It seems that applies to Andrews and Central but not Dudley and Smith. We have a correction on today's editorial page. At the same time, it doesn't look like the new money is going to do the same things that the old money did, but maybe that's better somehow.)

Also this week, school funding was given a hearing in court by Judge Howard Manning, who brought in Charlotte-Mecklenburg administrators to explain why they aren't doing a better job with their resources. Read John Hood's take on what happened.

The Charlotte Observer took Superintendent James Pughsley to task, too, for initially saying high school performances could be improved with current resources. "More money is needed," the Observer said in setting the record straight.

That seems to rule out the possibility of spending money more effectively, but that might be asking too much. More is always better.

Still, I get annoyed at the main criticism leveled at the federal No Child Left Behind Act - that is hasn't been "fully funded" by the Bush administration and Congress.

What is full funding? Will that be the amount it takes to accomplish every possible goal in public education? Well, guess what. We'll never reach it.

I know NCLB has flaws. My wife, who teaches in a middle school, tells me all about them. But I still like its approach: You have to lift the performances of every group of children in your school; you can't hide low achievers under a high overall average. It's an approach that local systems should have taken a long time ago. So, if they should have been meeting these requirements all along, why are they complaining that the federal government isn't providing full funding? They should do what they need to do on their own.

OK, I know. Limited resources.

So, again, how much do they need to get the job done?

Maybe we should try this question first: What's the job we want to get done?

Is it to raise every child to grade level, defined as a minimum level of competency? To eliminate all racial/ethnic/socioeconomic gaps, not just at the minimum level but also at the top levels of achievement? To see every child through to graduation with the qualifications to advance to higher education or the tools to begin a productive career in the work force?

Naturally, we should set the loftiest goals. And plan to reach them as soon as we get full funding.