(Published October 11‚ 2004)

Gov. Mark Sanford, once again in search of ways to trim the state budget, set his sights on the Education Department last week. While some ways might be found to economize further in education spending, we worry that the Sanford approach ultimately could be self-defeating.

With budget cutbacks in virtually every state agency for three years running, not much fat, if any, is left. Sanford has been forced to use a scalpel, with a nip here and a tuck there, to find any savings.

The education budget, one of the state's biggest annual expenses, might appear to be a ripe target for cutting. But this state serves a K-12 student population of more than 665,000, and education advocates assert that the Legislature has failed to meet minimum funding standards set by the Education Finance Act.

By the EFA standard for full funding, the base student cost for 2004-2005 should have been $2,234 per child. Lawmakers funded the base student cost at $1,857. So, it could be argued that education starts in the hole, even before Sanford attempts further cuts.

Last week, the governor and his staff grilled state Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum, who also is a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, about her budget. Topics ranged from consolidating school districts to changing the state's standardized tests.

Sanford suggested that the Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test, given annually to third- through eighth-graders, could be replaced with a national standardized test. Tenenbaum pointed out that six years of work had gone into establishing the PACT test, and that it has higher benchmarks for achievement than those required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

We doubt much real economy or superior results would be achieved by switching tests at this point.

Another potential target was the National Certification program for teachers. Sanford suggested that teachers who receive state bonuses for becoming nationally certified should be required to teach in poor and rural school districts.

While we think encouraging qualified teachers with monetary incentives to take jobs in poor and rural districts is a noble idea, we don't think it should be a requirement for certified teachers. In fact, such a requirement probably would kill the certification program.

When Tenenbaum and then-Gov. Jim Hodges began pushing the national board certification program, South Carolina ranked near the bottom of the nation in the number of certified teachers. Since then, about 3,225 teachers in the state have become nationally certified. Last year, South Carolina ranked third in the nation in the number of teachers who earned certification. That, we think, demonstrates how successful the program has been.

South Carolina teachers receive a healthy bonus for becoming certified. They are paid an extra $7,500 a year by the state for the life of their 10-year credentials, and local school districts often add something to the pot.

But many of those who seek certification are veteran teachers with deep roots in their communities. There is little likelihood that established teachers would try to become certified if it meant pulling up stakes to teach in a rural school district.

The arduous, year-long process of becoming certified not only helps to identify quality teachers but also serves as a further training experience. Those who go through it emerge as better teachers than when they began.

And it's not as if South Carolina is the only state offering these incentives. North Carolina, which offers similar bonuses, was one of the two states that certified more teachers last year than South Carolina. And if South Carolina tacks on a requirement that certified teachers move to poor and rural districts, we can expect the state's best teachers to migrate to other states.

Our advice to Sanford on this proposal and many of the cuts he has suggested for other agencies: Don't kill the golden goose.

IN SUMMARY
Governor sets his sights on the education budget in search for areas to cut.