Ford’s “Revival-Style” Buoys Parental Choice Movement

By Red Bank Bar on March 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Voucher? Tax credit? A distinction without a difference. One of the dumbest senators who happens to be AA suggests a dumb solution that has NEVER worked anywhere in the US, and y’all are all over it. Figures…

By fitsnews on March 24th, 2009 at 2:54 pm

RBB,

Yeah but unlike La Socialista “covering” the ciggie tax increase, we actually referenced somebody in our story who isn’t supporting the choice bill.

So while we are proudly unfair and imbalanced, we’re actually fairer and more balanced than they are.

Crazy, huh?

-FITS

P.S. – And Baker, it’s okay to say you’re “for the kids” if you’re actually doing something that will benefit them.

By Steve Spurrier on March 24th, 2009 at 3:08 pm

Isn’t this the same clown who claimed racism when USC wouldn’t give SCSU 45,000 football tickets?

By Doug Ross on March 24th, 2009 at 4:18 pm

A tax credit is not the way to go especially for the poor in this state. If you aren’t paying taxes in the first place, what good is a tax credit?

I’m more in favor of bribing parents to do their job. Offer a one time $10,000 payment when their kid graduates from a public high school.

You’d see a whole lot more community involvement in making sure kids got educated if that was in effect.

By Nope on March 24th, 2009 at 5:06 pm

You’re right, Baker. This is tax credit legislation, which is meaningless for parents too poor to pay taxes. There’s a provision for scholarships, which may or may not materialize, and which, in any event, would more likely be targeted than universally available.

It doesn’t answer any of the other flaws of Put Parents in Charge, either. There’s no transportation — how many of Robert Ford’s poor constituents have the ability to get their children to and from private school every day? There’s not enough money to pay tuition at even the most marginal private schools, which aren’t likely to want poor children even if they had the full tuition. It might encourage new private schools to organize, but they wouldn’t have to tell us how they use their money or report how students perform. How intelligent is that?

This is nothing more than a tax break for middle class parents.

“Dangling the conservatives’ voucher agenda in front of the nation’s most disenfranchised Americans under the guise of helping them is both immoral and hypocritical. This is really an attempt to divide the African-American community against itself.”

Timothy McDonald
President
Concerned Black Clergy in Atlanta

By Nope on March 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pm

The tax credit is for anyone who pays any part of a student’s private school tuition — including all those parents who already send their children to private schools. People and corporations could get the same tax credit if they choose to contribute to student scholarships.

By baker on March 24th, 2009 at 5:44 pm

And the SSOs may or may not take off. If I understand it correctly, the corporate and individual tax credits would come out of what those folks now pay in taxes for public education. If I’m wrong on that, then I apologize. But if they’re paying less taxes, then that money would have to come out of some state budget….so I’m guessing it would be public education.

That sets up a choice for coporations (and individuals) to choose between their public schools or private schools. Could set up a nasty debacle…though one SCRG-types might love to see.

In any case, how would these work? Would they only work within the county where the corporate entity is located? What, then, about poor rural counties? Can they be targeted at specific church or social groups? Could they go to families that get part of the tax credit or not all?

In other words, would there be any guarantee that these would go to the neediest students?

By Diz on March 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

One would suspect Robert Ford is hoping for a way to fund his campaign for Governor. Then again, he used to be very loyal to his video poker buddies as well. We’re sure that in both cases he was only committed to the principles of the matter.

By Mike on March 25th, 2009 at 12:31 am

As usual, the anti-voucher, anti-tax credit, anti(real)-choice crowd throws the same, tired invective at these types of reforms:

“Never worked anywhere in the US.” No serious-minded person could argue that SC’s current system is “working,” either.

Ford is “inane” and a “clown.” Poisoning the well, ad hominem attack, pick your favorite tactic from a Rhetoric 101 course, but it’s still attacking the messenger, not the message.

“Meaningless for parents too poor to pay taxes.” Certainly some would not be effected or eligible for the tax credit piece, but income isn’t the only predictor for educational attainment problems, and the other posts mentioned some of the other ways in which such a program WOULD help- scholarships would be created, and the market would respond almost immediately with new, lower-cost private schools to compete for those dollars. Even a second-rate private school is cheaper to run and more effective than most of our public schools in SC.

“How many of Robert Ford’s poor constituents have the ability to get their children to and from private school every day?” This argument is specious in that it sets up a no-win for ANY alternative to public schools with a busing system. The position is also insulting; I bet lots of lower income folks would bust their humps to get their kids to a private school if they could.

“They wouldn’t have to tell us how they use their money or report how students perform.” Our current system produces reams of reports and statistical analysis (much of it performed under the aegis of six-figure-salaried educrats in Cola) to tell us that we’re not making it. Even in high-cost, tony areas like DC, our private institutions generally spend about half (or less) as much per student as do public school systems, primarily because they eliminate the six-figure statisticians and Taj Mahal buildings.

“There’s not enough money to pay tuition at even the most marginal private schools.” Check out this snippet from a David Salisbury CATO report: “The most recent figures available from the U.S. Department of Education show that in 2000 the average tuition for private elementary schools nationwide was $3,267. Government figures also indicate that 41 percent of all private elementary and secondary schools — more than 27,000 nationwide — charged less than $2,500 for tuition. Less than 21 percent of all private schools charged more than $5,000 per year in tuition. According to these figures, elite and very expensive private schools tend to be the exception in their communities, not the rule.” This, of course, would change a bit if new schools popped up specifically to compete for the tax rebate $$$ (or even better, means-tested vouchers targeting the lowest income kids).

“You know the problems. Poverty and racism.” What- we didn’t have poor African American kids in the fifties and sixties? We did, naturally, they just weren’t called “African American” back then. Yet, the real decline in public education is much more recent, indicating something in addition to poverty and racism (or instead of it).

Let’s argue the logical points of the debate and drop the visceral partisanship that seems to surround this issue (like so many these days). This plan isn’t perfect by any stretch, but neither is the status quo. What would happen if we tried a few of the ideas and they didn’t quite work? The one luxury of our current situation is that we don’t have very far to fall.

By Nope on March 25th, 2009 at 9:11 am

I don’t think the “anti-voucher crowd” is against choice. I think we believe that if the public is going to pay for choice, it should:

a) be available to everyone equally, mainly because that’s the right thing to do but also because it might mitigate the problem of picking out highly motivated students with involved parents and leaving the rest.

b) provide some semblance of assurance to taxpayers that the schools that (you’re probably right) would sprout up by the dozens because public money is available are doing education at all, and doing at least as well as public schools, with the public’s money.

Those things alone make this bill not worth considering.

As to your other points:

It makes very little sense to try something that has been shown not to work well anyplace else just because you think what you have is not working.

I don’t think you have any way of knowing how well private schools educate students compared to public schools because they don’t give state tests. You can look at the SAT if you want, but South Carolina’s independent schools score 50th out of 51 states on that test. They do a little better than public schools, sure, but they have the luxury of working with a whole different type of student: the highly motivated ones with involved parents. There’s no way to know, but I would bet that given the same set of students, private schools would do considerably worse than public schools.

That’s also why cost comparisons between public and private schools don’t mean much. They’re not educating the really costly students — those who are behind academically, or have discipline problems, or have special needs.

And of course we had poor kids and black kids in the fifties and sixties. We just didn’t make them go to school or care very much if they stayed there. I’d be interested to compare graduation rates for poor and black kids from that era with the rate now.

By Questions on March 25th, 2009 at 12:04 pm

Where would children of color be able to take their tax-credit-funded voucher? According to Department of Education data from the Private School Survey, options appear to be few. http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/privateschoolsearch

The Robert E Lee Academy in Lee County, had 7 black students in 2007-08, out of a total enrollment of 603. There’s one private school in Dillon County, and it’s 95% white. (Dillon Christian School.) There are two in Hampton County – Community Christian is ok demographically, but has limited space, while Patrick Henry had two black students out of 243 total enrollment. In Jasper County, Abundant Life had 35 black students (out of 209); Step of Faith had 13 (out of 133); and Thomas Heyward had only 11 (out of 512). Two of the 3 private schools in Abbeville have no black students; the third has two.

In Florence County, black students form more than 10% of the student body at only two private schools – St. Anthony and Marantha Christian, and St. Anthony ends at 8th grade. The other six private high schools range from 85% to 98% white.

So put another way, who really is this program designed to help?

By Mart Braden on March 30th, 2009 at 5:08 am

Good Lord! We already pay enough taxes to educate the children. It seems that most officials (if not all) believe more and more money is a substitute for good policy and quality efforts.