An article from The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC)

[Emily Martine]

Well said, Scott. Rather than seeing this as a reward for NCSSM students, we
might look at it as a purely selfish way of keeping the best and brightest
in state to work, innovate and pay taxes. So the question is, does the
incentive work, or do these kids take their free NC education and then go
work out of state? Perhaps something like Teaching Fellows where you have to
work in state for X number of years to "pay back" would appeal to more, but
it would be a nightmare to track, exp. since some go to grad school, etc.

As for need based scholarships, does anyone remember how hard it was to get
anything need-based? My parents were penalized for not having any debt other
than a small mortgage. The amount they thought we could pay and what we
could actually pay were vastly different.

As for merit-based scholarships for all NC students, I think any kind of
system that rewards kids for good grades encourages people to take less
challenging courses, and there is rampant grade inflation in most public
schools. I know some very average kids whose parents brag about their
straight A's, thinking their kids work as hard as NCSSMers.

Finally, this is going to sound horribly un-PC, but as a parent who has
experienced "No Child Gets Ahead" in our public school system first hand, I
think it is about darn time we spent some money on the bright kids. I see
the vast amount of resources going to try (often in vain) to help kids whose
parents have no standards of discipline at home, and are not even willing to
read to their kids for 10 minutes a night and expect the schools to do 100%
of the job of educating and civilizing their kids. I'm not saying these kids
don't need help - they do, and lots of it. I am just sick to death of people
crying "elitism" any time we spend money educating students who have
demonstrated that they are bright and hard-working.

I spent 4 hours a week + babysitting expenses last year volunteering as a
reading tutor for a kid who was really far behind because his parents never
took him to the doctor when he had an ear infection and he spent the first 3
years of school not being able to hear. He progressed almost 2 grade levels,
but his vocabulary was still irreparably far behind because his parents just
stuck him in front of the TV all day or let him play video games. Funny how
people can't afford to take their kid to the doctor but can afford a
playstation and gameboy and DVD player.

Kids in my son's class have tutors, aids, ESL teachers, and all kinds of one
on one help. This costs a lot of money. Meanwhile, the smart kids who are
ahead of grade level are bored, forced to sit still and "learn" things they
knew two years ago. "Closing the achievement gap" means bringing the bottom
up, teachers are rewarded for that and the majority of resources are
dedicated to that. Again, I am not saying we shouldn't be spending that
money. What I am saying is that in comparison to what we are spending to
bring the lowest performing kids up to just a basic level of competency, the
tuition grant is peanuts! If this country wants to get into a position of
leadership in science and technology, we need to invest in people who are
actually likely to be leaders in those areas. Perhaps the tuition grant is a
good investment, perhaps not. We will have to look at the data to see.

Sorry to go off about my own frustration w/ public schools, but I think
opposition to the tuition grant is yet another symptom of the anti-gifted
sentiment that is going to keep our state and country lagging behind in
innovation.

Emily Martine '88