Choice For Her Kids, Not Yours

By Anonymous on September 23rd, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Why doesn’t this surprise me at all? Maybe she and James Smith can get together and talk about how great the public schools are that they don’t let their kids attend? If we continue to vote in people like this, we shouldn’t be surprised by our the state’s under achieving schools and inefficient, wasteful government.

By lancastermommy on September 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm

FINALLY– someone seeing what a hypocrite Mandy Powers-Norrell is! She is one of the most liberal Dems in Lancaster and I personally am ashamed of her antics and “good ole boy” politics. She touts her best qualification is because she was born and raised in Lancaster. So was I. So was thousands of others in our county, but that doesn’t mean they are suited to represent us.

Also, check out her campaign rally held at First Bapt. Church in Lancaster. http://www.fairplay.org says this is illegal and could cost First Bapt. its tax exempt status. First Bapt has been without a pastor until recently and I don’t want the Church to be punished but Mandy, being such an intelligent lawyer (sarcasm) should have know she was jeopardizing her beloved church.

Also, Mandy was City Attorney for Lancaster. Now, I recently saw that her husband has taken over that position. Wouldn’t that job need to be posted for other attorneys to vie for? More “good ole boys” system at work.

By Ed on September 23rd, 2008 at 8:07 pm

Hey NOTVERYBRIGHT: Since not even you can defend what the candidate of your view has done does that mean you then have to change the subject and launch an attack? The prudent thing for you would be to not respond at all. That way you don’t look quite as foolish and ignorant as you normally do. How would you defend her in this case? Oh, i forgot you already passed on that one.

By fitsnews on September 23rd, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Hey NVB,

Who do you work for? Wait … nobody cares because nobody reads your website.

“Unfair, Imbalanced,” dude. Says so right at the top of each page.

And unlike all those kids you educrat apologists leave trapped in failing public schools each year, you should have no problem reading that.

-FITSNews

By notverybright on September 23rd, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Seems I hit a nerve. Why the hypersensitvity to the question of what financial motivation is behind your articles?

Granted, your header may say the site is unfair and imbalanced. What it doesn’t say is “Unfair and imbalanced because I am being paid by ______ to write this stuff.” I’m just saying put it out there so everybody can judge for themselves.

Pretty simple suggestion, but I have a feeling you’ll continue to attack me rather than actually come clean.

By Draven on September 24th, 2008 at 8:45 am

If it’s a failing school, doesn’t everyone, under NCLB, have the option to go to another school?

By sid on September 24th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

baker,

You really don’t see any reason for criticism? I’m no expert on the school choice debate in SC, but as I read this, the candidate is an advocate of the current public school system, but pulled both of her children out of the school in the district where they live. That seems a bit contradictory, and worthy of criticism.

If there’s a problem with the public school in her area, shouldn’t she work to make it better? Her own website says, “Political cynics like to rail against ‘failing schools,’ but the vast majority of our public schools in District 16 are earning passing grades and improving on every important scale, especially test scores and teacher certification.” So, what was wrong with the school where she lives? Is she afraid of being labeled a “cynic” if she states that school is failing? Does she think ignoring the problem by removing her kids will eliminate the problem? Why ask to have one child put into another district, and put another in a charter school? Isn’t that an indictment of the public school in her district? If not outright criticism, her actions, at a minimum, warrant an explanation from her. Especially if (and I emphasize IF) she received any favorable consideration that might not be extended to others in her area.

As for your Sanford comment, that doesn’t make any sense. I was under the impression Sanford supports opportunities for people to have more options than the current public school system. I was not aware he ever said that everyone should have the exact same education opportunities as everyone else. As far as I know, he’s not a socialist. I’m guessing he supports people who are financially successful being able to put their kids into the best education system they feel is appropriate, and they can afford. His argument seems to be, regarding education in SC, to make more opportunities available. But that by no means indicates he thinks everyone should have the exact same opportunities. I don’t see anything hypocritical in his views/actions, but perhaps you can set me straight on the subject. Like I said, I’m not an expert on it.

By fitsnews on September 24th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

JWB,

Sure thing … the district specifically cited S.C. Code sections 8-13-765, 8-13-1346 and 8-13-1300 as well as State Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 92-055 in telling Mrs. Powers-Norrell to cease and desist her illegal campaign activities.

Any more questions?

Good … class dismissed.

-FITSNews

By baker on September 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Sid,
First of all, I’m not a supporter of Ms. Powers-Norrell’s campaign. Secondly, I said that if she got preferential treatment in her school district, then that is worthy of criticism.

I do not, however, think one should be criticized for taking advantage of a choice the system provides. Simple as that.

Indeed, there are many, many pro-public school people — and critics of private school choice — are strongly advocate creating new choices within the public school system. Those might take the form of open enrollment, which Jim Rex pushed for, or you could also be talking about magnet schools or charter schools. In each of these cases, the schools still must comply with state mandates, with local school board policies, with state or federal accountability — and they are typically part of an overall strategy on the part of a community-based school system.

Of course, this is exactly why some private school choice supporters are not satisfied with “within the system” choice…and that’s a fine argument to have. My point is simply that supporting new choice scenarios within a school district and taking advantage of what’s offered is not, in my opinion, at odds with being opposed to private school choice plans like PPIC.

As for Mark Sanford and his children, your point is well taken. Sanford has never stated (to my knowledge) that PPIC would guarantee anyone’s kids entry into Heathwood Hall. But supporters of private school choice ROUTINELY suggest that their plans will allow parents to put their children in any school of their choosing. Even the name “Put Parents in Charge” — which was Mark Sanford’s name for the plan (or maybe something that one of his communications staffers came up with?) — well, it certainly sounds enticing. But the parents won’t be in charge if Such-and-Such private school they “choose” says “no thanks”….and Sanford’s private school of choice happens to be one of those that’s A.) pretty darn expensive and B.) I would guess has pretty tough admission standards.

But you are right that Sanford never specifically advertised admission to Heathwood Hall as an outcome of PPIC.

By sid on September 24th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

So, you have no intelligence/opinion regarding the article? Then why bother posting anything? Just to get your digs in at FITS? Seems pretty schoolyard. I notice your blog is a veritable wasteland of inciteful commentary, which may explain why so few visit. When you have an opportunity to have your words read by a much broader audience, maybe you should try to come up with something relevant to say. Just some free advice.

As for your response to the funding question, I notice the posts to which you linked are worded rather carefully. You say, “Neither I nor my employer have any formal link to the Obama campaign….” So, is there an informal link? And why mention your employer? I don’t know who that is, so perhaps you can elaborate. Since you brought up ethics, and you brought up your employer, shouldn’t you state who that is (I did ask) so I can make sure your claims actually ring true? Again, if your employer is already well known, I apologize for asking, but perhaps you could just whisper it to me, so I can be in the loop.

You also claim, “I ain’t affiliated with nobody.” If you say so. I don’t really believe that, but that’s not really the point. You have a personal political agenda. You have a definite lean to your views. I’m not really sure whether or not you get paid for your musings has much to do with the quality or veracity of what you post. Same goes for FITS, in my opinion. I can read an opinion piece and determine whether or not it is accurate without knowing if there’s a money trail somewhere. But, since you raise the issue, I think I deserve to know from where originates your source of income, whether or not I feel it has any bearing on your postings. If you disagree, then your anti-FITS post is as empty as is your blog.

By Unbelievable... on September 24th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Typical leftist crap. At least Mulvaney is honest about where his kids go to school and why.

By baker on September 24th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Sid, I guess we just don’t agree about the significance of calling oneself a public school supporter and taking advantage of a choice created by and for the public school system. You can cut it a thousand ways if you choose, but I see no room for criticism at all. Preferential treatment — yes, that’s a problem. Choosing a public school that you’re eligible to select for your child? Again, I see no legitimate reason to complain about that.

On the matter, of Gov. Mark Sanford’s stance and his “choice” for his own kids, I have no great interest in going round-and-round with you about it or poring over the possible intent of every word or statement. I acknowledged that you are correct that he hasn’t made explicit promises about WHERE children would get into school based on the PPIC plan. But beyond that, I don’t think it’s hard to find significant inconsistencies and untruths on the part of those supporting his plan. Again, you may analyze every word a thousand different ways, but I think the issue is pretty clear.

**Here’s what SCRG (former?) president Tom Swatzel said a few years back in support of PPIC: “As for poor families, they are entitled to corporate-funded scholarships for 100% of education related costs.”

Simply not correct. Poor families are guaranteed nothing under PPIC. Some poor families might get the corporate-funded scholarships, but how many is way up in the air. And whether or not they could use them at the school of their “choice” is a huge question, too. I’d also question the “100%” of education costs bit. Maybe I’m misreading, but is Swatzel claiming that if tuition is $8,000 a year, then the scholarship would contribute $8,000 a year….I’m not sure on that one, but it sounds awfully dubious to me.

**Swatzel also said this: “The tuition tax credit being considered is around $4,000 per student. The per-pupil expenditure in South Carolina is over $9,000 per student. So for every credit claimed by a family, there is a huge savings being achieved by the state and public schools.”

Also wildly untrue. EVERY CREDIT CLAIMED would absolutely not result in a savings for the public schools. If a school loses ONE student — if a school loses 20 students spread across 6 grades — it’s not likely that the school can lay off a single teacher or turn the lights off in a single classroom or cancel a single bus route. Why would SCRG try to mislead people with such incorrect analysis?

**In the Wall Street Journal, no less, a guy named Brendan Miniter wrote a piece about school choice in South Carolina. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110009749
The column focused the concerns of poor students and said, “There are an estimated 200,000 students across South Carolina who are poor and stuck in failing public schools….advocates have lined up bipartisan support in the Republican-controlled Legislature for creating a $1,000 tax credit for middle-class parents and a $4,500 state ’scholarship’ for poor kids in failing public schools that can be used to attend any school.”

Here again, I would argue that it sounds like those 200,000 kids are going to get scholarships. There’s no such guarantee AT ALL with PPIC.

Former state Superintendent of Education Barbara Neilsen wrote in support of PPIC http://www.scresponsiblegov.org/content.asp?action=detail&catID=8122&id=43433&parentID=8091:
“I believe that every parent has the right to choose the education delivery model that best suits their child’s needs….I have always kept my eye on the goal of a well-educated population. Put Parents in Charge encompasses all of these beliefs.”

PPIC “encompasses ALL OF THESE BELIEFS”? That is EVERY PARENT’s “right to choose the education delivery model that best suits their child’s needs” will be met by PPIC? An elite model at Heathwood Hall no matter admission requirements or costs? Models of education that may not be available at all in many communities? Transportation to make the “right to choose” actually possible? Neilsen seems to be suggesting all of the above.

**Here’s one from our host, Will Folks, from when he was Gov. Sanford’s press secretary: http://www.thetandd.com/articles/2005/03/02/news/doc42252f1d0b357601768981.txt

“Yes, any individual or corporation can register to open a scholarship-granting organization, then provide a scholarship to poor children. We are not going to leave the neediest children behind.”

That’s a nice promise, and I have no reason to doubt that Will meant well. But there was no assurance whatsoever built into PPIC to back up the promise. The SGOs might take off or might not. And they might be organized around all sorts of agendas, far as I could tell, that might or might not include giving money to the poorest families.

So, I don’t know, Sid. You may be unimpressed with all this. I think it’s pretty clear that the PPIC rhetoric has been extremely misleading.

By baker on September 24th, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Scared — Are you promoting a voucher system funded by the state aimed at only the poorest kids…but, at the same time, ALL the state’s poor kids? Because that’s a lot different from what Mark Sanford has proposed and groups like SCRG have touted.

I’ve long said that targeted voucher programs might work where the circumstances are right. If you work with a private school that stands ready to accept poor students at a reasonable cost AND is willing to work with student who are behind academically, then maybe your community is the kind of place where such a plan could work.

Of course, the school you work with doesn’t sound typical of the private schools in South Carolina….but I don’t doubt that there are some out there.

Meanwhile, there are a host of ways to reform public education if intelligent people put their minds together. We need to make it easier for qualified and talented professionals to get into public school classrooms. Yes, supporting them with better pay would be a good thing to do, but pay isn’t the only issue important to attracting good teachers. Alternative programs for children who aren’t getting along behaviorally in public schools — and are at the same time disruupting others — are important. After-school programs can make a huge difference for children, academically and socially, and for their parents. We could go on from there.

By sid on September 25th, 2008 at 11:06 am

baker,

Yes, we disagree. I already said that. But there is obviously room for criticism, so you are just wrong on that aspect. That’s why there HAS BEEN criticism. Whether or not it is valid to all concerned is the question. You think it not. I think it is. Some seem to share your view, while others mine. When there IS criticism, there must be ROOM FOR criticism.

As for your detailed post on the school choice debate, it’s very…lengthy. Most also has nothing to do with our discussion. I guess you figured you’d just throw it all at the wall, and see what sticks. Overall, it seems you are simply reading what you want to read into most of these statements. One or two may actually be false, although you concede at one point in one example, “I’m not sure on that one, but it sounds awfully dubious to me.” So, you just don’t know.

But I see nothing here that an uncommitted person would read as saying, “We guarantee access to all schools for all kids.” You’re opposed to the idea, so you look for any way you can to attack it. And that includes reading more into statements than intended (for the most part). That’s Politics 101. The basic argument you had, though, that Sanford might be considered a hypocrite for touting school choice but putting his kids in a school not everyone would be able to, is without merit and unsupportable. In fact, he’s merely exercising an option the current system allows, just like the candidate you are defending. The difference being that he’s opposed to the current system, while she backs it, then manipulates it to (one presumes) her kids’ benefit.

You did have a good rant against school choice, though. But I wasn’t debating the merits of school choice. I was discussing the message you claim was being promoted. Again, you implied Sanford was possibly a hypocrite, and making the claims you attribute to proponents of school choice. You sort of backed off when I called you on it, which is good on you. You can claim I’m analyzing words, but what I’m doing is setting you straight. You can’t just plow into a discussion making ridiculous insinuations without being challenged.

As for your debate over school choice, keep it up. That’s your concern, not mine. I just didn’t appreciate your gratuitous slam at Sanford, called you on it, and am happy to see you have backed off, even if you attempted to do so in a fashion that would appear to give you some sort of moral high ground. One point I will contend, however, is your comment that parents are not in charge unless they can choose to send their kid to every single school option available to everyone in South Carolina. That’s just silly. If a parent has five school options, but only three are truly viable options, that parent can still be in charge of making the decision as to where his child goes.

BTW, don’t feel bad that I seem to be targeting you. It’s nothing personal. I’m just an infrequent visitor who happens to stumble across articles of interest form time to time, and when I feel the urge to comment, it just seems you are the one who has inspired it.

By baker on September 25th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Oops, a typo: “I would call either politician an outright “hypocrite,” though I do find Sanford’s stance more problematic, especially considering that his PPIC actually promises nothing to the poor.”

I meant to say that I would NOT call either politician an outright “hypocrite.”

By baker on September 25th, 2008 at 11:10 pm

OK, Sid….lots of accusations and judgmental comments, about what I expected. I’m not getting into it with you further. I stand behind each argument I’ve made and simply think you are wrong on every single front.

By baker on September 26th, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Sid,
Whatever.
You have essentially put words into my mouth, offered personal judgments without evidence, challenged my integrity…..all on top of lodging a lot of arguments that are (yes, in my opinion) quite off the mark….and all with such a tone of arrogance that it’s almost strange.

In fact, I’d say it comes across as contrived.

Such have been your efforts, and the tone of those efforts, to defend the FITSnews crew and (you went round-and-round about something Mande Wilkes wrote not long ago) and their opinions — including their attacks on others — that it really does seem contrived. Almost like a FITSnews insider, rather than an “infrequent visitor,” as you have described yourself.

But, I don’t know…I’m not too much of a conspiracy guy, and I generally take folks at their word.

By baker on September 26th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

Sid,
Perhaps I should be honored that you go to such lengths to pick apart my arguments….even to the level of making far-reaching and uninformed personal judgments and accusations.

I do consider myself a moderate politically — and not much of an ideologue, even on the school choice issue. At the same, you may be correct to some extent: I’m not a moderate when it comes to my opinion of really bad public policy proposals, like PPIC.

In any case, you’re an interesting guy, Sid. You claim to be an “infrequent reader” and say that you don’t even live in South Carolina. Yet, there is a distinct pattern to your posting: If people get a little tough on Will Folks or Mande Wilkes…well, that’s when Sid turns up. And you’ll argue to the minute detail and, again, will challenge the honesty and integrity of others when folks criticize the arguments of Will or Mande.

‘Tis true that I know a few folks who have blogs in SC. How did you know? In fact, I know Will Folks a little. A funny and talented guy. A good writer. Some excellent taste in music. I like Will. I just don’t agree with all his arguments — especially where education is concerned.

Meanwhile, for someone who claims not to even live in SC or know anyone involved in this blog, you sure go to some impressive lengths (though not impressive reasoning or attitude) to defend the arguments (including attacks on others) and honor of the FITS writers.

Again, the whole thing appears contrived to me.

By baker on September 27th, 2008 at 10:02 am

“Hope your weekend is going super!”

Thanks, Sid.