But I would vehemently argue that Put Parents in Charge — as Gov. Sanford and Will Folks advocated — is seriously questionable. It guaranteed NOTHING to the poor. The scholarship organizations might have helped. Maybe a lot, even. But there was no guarantee AT ALL to the poor. Middle-class families, though, were guaranteed a tax break. I would think they’d have gotten the first dibs on existing space in private schools. And that doesn’t even get into the question of whether top private schools would even consider taking in our state’s most struggling students.

Big school choice proponents respond to these concerns by simply saying that the free market will take care of everything. Of course, Will Folks just ran a story about The State — a big-business, corporate-run, for-profit newspaper — had decided NOT TO SERVE customers in various parts of the state. The idea that for-profit entities are going to spring up in Allendale or Colleton or Bamberg or Union counties to take care of the kids in our state who are poorest and most challenging to teach seems a little unrealistic to me. Additionally, most private schools are run, in part, on ongoing charitable donations and endowments….not just tuition dollars.

That’s how “educrat” sounds to me, anyway.

And it may be fair in some cases. But in this case, you’re talking to someone who was elected by the voters in her community. She may be right or wrong about this and other issues. But isolated from the public, untouchable and buffered by layers of administrative machinery, bureaucrat-style? No. School board members are democratically elected and must answer to the voters — same as Sen. Jackson himself.

So, I don’t think it “walks like, quacks like….” anything, really. It’s just one elected official in disagreement with another elected official. Politics. Not bureaucracy.

Again, it’s not that big a deal. But I do think language matters. So while I think you have a talent for language, I think it’s misused in this case.

When you say “educrat” we know you really mean “…responsible and well meaning professionals honestly working in the best interests of all children.”

Darrell was probably just testing the waters in case the SCRG money changers “up” their offer to him. You know they’re working hard to “convert” anyone they can. By the way, D.J. is already catching lots of heat for his foolish comment. We won’t hear it from him again.

Speaking of trying to “convert” people. How come you’ve been so uncharacteristically quite about the expo over at BBQ? Great stuff!

Gervais has published clear, excellent and irrefutable research on the sham “grass roots” organizations (like SCRG) and how they’re trying to “convert” the Legislature with out-of-state money. And, we think your readers will know what we mean when we say “convert.”

We fail to see the significance of your argument. If it quacks like an educrat …

-FITSNews

Richland 1? Rosewood Elementary, Hand Middle and Dreher High are all excellent. Other schools (like AC Flora) have come a long way. The only truly bad schools in Richland 1 are located in crack-laden war zones. Yahoo would look at least as foolish trying to run those schools as he finds those now running them.

Does the term “educrat” really apply here? I thought it was a take-off on bureaucrat — bureaucrats who work in the education system…..superintendents, personnel directors, program coordinators, etc.

If that’s the origin of the term, then it would seem out of place here. The person who wrote the letter about Sen. Jackson’s comments is a school board member. Not an administrator or bureaucrat, but a democratically elected representative.

The board member may or may not be out of line with her comments, but again, it seems to me that the “educrat” insult doesn’t really fit the bill. It’s just one democratically elected politician disagreeing with another democratically elected politician.

Any thoughts, Will?

If Richland 1 is against it…them I am for it.