Stepping away from the middle-of-the-road stances that often characterize politics, gubernatorial candidates Democrat Mike Easley and Republican Richard Vinroot stood on opposite political curbs yesterday. Both governor hopefuls used an education debate sponsored by the Education: Everybody's Business coalition to emphasize their disparate approaches to improving North Carolina schools.
Easley, the current state attorney general, favors reducing class size and broadening pre-kindergarten programs. Vinroot, a former mayor of Charlotte, wants to improve teaching standards through a system of merit-based pay and voucher-like educational scholarships to less-fortunate children so they can attend better schools.
One of the sharpest divisions between the candidates was how to improve the quality of North Carolina's teachers. Easley said the solution lies in instituting a program of frequent re-certification for teachers. In contrast, Vinroot highlighted one of the tenets of his education platform-merit-based pay.
Easley argued that re-certification would ensure that teachers remain knowledgeable about their fields and learn about new pedagogical methods. "Competency is not enough, today," he said. "I want to see proficiency."
Vinroot charged that certification should be a one-time event and contended that merit-based pay would encourage teachers to improve. He pointed to business as an example of the value of that type of salary system. "Almost every profession in [the world] has pay based on merit," he said. "I want to reward great teachers with great salaries." He later added that he hoped this scheme would help attract college students to the teaching profession.
After the debate, Almetta Armstrong, a retired teacher on the N.C. School Board Association, said merit-based pay could be beneficial, as long as it is done fairly. "I don't agree with re-testing," she said, adding that teachers are already familiar with their material, so re-certification would not weed out poor teachers.
Eventually, Easley agreed that incentive pay increases could help the teaching profession, but only if they went to teachers who achieved re-certification. Vinroot responded, "It looks like you've come on board."
But Easley also spoke about expanding teachers' benefit packages.
"We have to look at what it will take to attract close to 10,000 teachers over the next 10 years," he said. He listed sabbaticals and expense accounts for school supplies as examples of possible benefits.
Improving student performance also spurred a heated debate. Easley wants to concentrate on schools that receive poor performance ratings and place troubled students in alternative learning environments.
Conversely, Vinroot hopes to allow parents to move their children to better-rated schools, both public and private. He termed his plan a scholarship program for underprivileged children and stressed that it is not a voucher program.
"These are options for people who don't have options," he said. Vinroot cited a study by Harvard University's Brookings Institute that showed poor students improved with scholarship aid.
Easley charged that Vinroot's proposal was indeed a voucher program that would take control away from the state. "When you take voucher money and send it to a private school, you lose accountability," he said.
Don Wildman, a member of the N.C. Community College Faculty Association, does not support the scholarship program. "That's draining money from public schools," he said after the debate. "We need more money in the public schools."
Vinroot charged that Easley was holding to party lines. "You're going to stand in [underprivileged students'] schoolhouse door...," he said. "How long will they have to wait until their school improves?.... Ten years?"
Easley responded that he would improve schools by lowering the class size and expanding or instituting a pre-Kindergarten program. "I don't want to fence in poor children," he said. "I want to go in and fix their schools." He added that his pre-K programs would help at-risk 4-year-olds get ready for school.
The candidates did agree on a few issues. Both said North Carolina needs to devote more money and resources to community colleges and the growing Hispanic population. Neither candidate put forth very specific proposals on this topic, however.
They also agreed that the state should give more money to the university system. Easley supported fulfilling the schools' $3.1 million bond request, but Vinroot said N.C. citizens should vote on the issue. "The legislature has not taken care of that system for a long time," he added.
Although Barbara Howe, the Libertarian candidate for governor, was excluded from the debate, she held a press conference beforehand.
After the debate, she said the candidates' stances reflected typical politics and that her participation would have livened the debate. She added that since the sponsoring coalition was called Education: Everybody's Business, all candidates should have been included.
Although the debate was relatively free of mudslinging, the candidates managed to lob a few dirt clods. An audience that seemed mostly Democratic vehemently booed Vinroot when he charged that Easley had wrongly used public funds for his campaign. In turn, Easley tried to vilify Vinroot's stances.
The audience comprised organizations and people who have a strong stake in education, such as school board members, county commissioners and members of local chambers of commerce.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.