Jim Crow is alive and well in 21st Century South Carolina – except he’s now masquerading as the exclusive purveyor of the very freedoms he’s been withholding from poor, black children for decades.
South Carolina’s public schools are “minimally adequate,” we’re told.
That’s true.
They are.
But why?
According to this state’s education establishment, it’s because they are “chronically underfunded.”
And not surprisingly, that same establishment wants you to believe that our last-in-the-nation graduation rate, worsening SAT scores and growing achievement gap will magically disappear with ‘mo taxpayer money.
And so every year, like clockwork, they get ‘mo money – hundreds of millions of dollars of it, to be precise – but nothing ever changes.
In fact, it keeps getting worse.
South Carolina’s public schools have doubled their per pupil expenditures over the past decade. Over the previous four years, they’ve received an extra billion dollars in state funding. Currently, they have nearly $800 million in the bank (while they’re threatening to fire and furlough teachers, remember).
Oh, and at a time when budgets everywhere are being slashed – public schools in South Carolina will likely end up being funded at their highest level ever.
Yup, you read that right.
It’s the con of the century – an increasingly expensive investment in individual failure and generational neglect that’s on institutional auto-pilot, and has been for years.
Oh, and God forbid anybody step up and question that record of failure and neglect, because the establishment will sic its pit bulls on you faster than you can say NAACP. Or SDE. Or SCEA. Or SCASA. Or SCSBA.
Either that or one of those alphabet soup apologists will flat out lie about a key provision of a long-overdue reform plan – specifically, academic scholarships for low-income students.
For example, liberal La Socialista (a.k.a. The State newspaper) poverty pimp Warren Bolton today called it a “fantasy” that corporations would donate money to fund these scholarships during difficult economic times.
Aside from the fact that this isn’t the only issue Bolton poverty pimps on, is his claim true?
No.
Corporate-sponsored scholarships provided assistance to 50,000 low-income students in Pennsylvania last year – which the last time we checked wasn’t the best year on record for private giving.
So why does Bolton ignore that data?
Easy. It doesn’t fit with his theory that a bunch of rich white people couldn’t possibly give a damn about poor black kids.
That presumption is racist as hell, but then again so is the rest of the regurgitated drivel being spewed by La Socialista‘s editorial board.
Basically, if you’re not on board with dumping more cash into a demonstrably failed system, they’re going to attack you.
Look, people. The only “fantasy” at work here is the belief that pouring more money into the same failed status quo is going to change things.
We’ve done that – and as usual, nothing changed except the excuses.
Poverty pimps need to “recognize” that we didn’t get rid of Jim Crow just so government and its Fourth Estate apologists could bring him back.
By GnuBerry May 4, 2009 at 12:48 pm
You seem fixated on vouchers.
By Gillon May 4, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Just wondering. If the SC public school system is so flush with money, why is it that the children of Dillon county have to attend school in a building constructed in 1896? Also, why is it that they had to rely on the charity of a company in out-of-state Chicago to provide decent furniture for their school? If the assumption among voucher supporters is that corporations will provide scholarships to poor black youths to attend private schools, why cannot these same corporate sponsors be prevailed upon now to provide funds for a decent learning environment for these same public school children in Dillon County?
By Jack May 4, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Don’t you guys get it. It is not about helping poor black kids. If it were, we might could reach an agreement on a proposal to provide needs based scholarships for children who are currently in failing public schools. This is about forcing me and anyone else who does not have children in private school to help those who do, pay for their kids private school education. Even though we are already paying for a public school for those same kids to attend. This is bad fiscal policy.
By SChoolsSuck May 4, 2009 at 3:04 pm
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. It is insane to keep funding schools and the SC Education Monopoly at the levels they are getting money and turning out such poor results.
IF SC schools dont want a voucher system then treat the schools like a business – pay the top performers (those teachers whose students meet or exceed the standards) and demote or fire those teachers who cant get students to perform. The same goes for Principals and school administrators – if they cant motivate teachers to perform get rid of them too.
Who in their right mind would say – “oh we are turning out such a poor product lets pay more money ‘that will fix it’”. If you went to a business that cranked out products that sucked as bad as SC students would u go back or continue to buy from that business?
Somehow we have to get rid of the monopoly that exists in the SC education/uneducation system. In the 70′s they increased sales tax by .01 to fund education to help students succeed. Well THAT didnt work so I think we should get our money back. :-)
By randal May 4, 2009 at 3:27 pm
What about those without children who are forced to pay for failing public schools? I for one would rather my hard- earned money go to good private schools which actually produce well-educated pupils rather than bank-roll horribly ineffective public schools.
By Liberty For Me May 4, 2009 at 3:37 pm
You could tax the people of this state till they have $100,000 per student and the children are not going to be smarter..Its not about money!!!…People get a clue..Get the government out of our schools.Take bids from outside educators and teach them with discipline.If the government was the answer for education,why would people pay for private schools.
By Jack May 4, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Randal you do not understand. If you do not have children in private school you will pay more tax because of the proposed tax credit to parents of private school kids. The amount being paid to the public school will not change, they will simply spend more money on each pupil who remains in the public schools. The credit amount being paid to the parents of the children in private school will be an additional cost to the state and therefor to you and me. I also do not have children in school. But I do not want to both pay for public school and help pay for someone else to send their kid to private school. I educated my kids let them educated theirs as they see fit.
As far as your money going to a good private school, how will you know your money is going to a good private school. There are plenty of crappy private schools out there. Far example the private high school in our city always under performs the public high school. The school choice people push this stupid idea that all private schools are better or as good as all public schools. They are not. Consequently in my town I would be helping a parent send his kid to a private school which I think is a crappy school. Why should I have to do that, plus pay for the public school?
If someone wants to target a law at failing schools, and that helps poor students in failing schools; I might be on board, but this law is nothing but a hand out to the parents of children in private schools, at the expense of everyone who does not have a child in private school, including me; and I’m sorry but I do not want to pay.
By BIN News Editorial Staff May 4, 2009 at 9:33 pm
sic(k) willie knows S.C. has the power to fix public education. But to do so S.C. must fix poverty, racism (which is blatant from sic(k) willie) and the social ills that come from poverty and centuries of racism.
Along the way the “minimally adequate” standard must be fixed along with the funding issues that sic(k) willie understands but refuses to admit.
sic(k) willie and Howie’s other voucher pimps know that vouchers would only leave those who need help the most even further behind.
That’s what makes them pimps.
They care nothing about those left behind.
Recently, Howie’s voucher pimps started this latest propaganda blitz. But no one in their right mind believes for a second that vouchers will help those who need help the most. Vouchers are a scam.
Vouchers are dead in S.C. Just ask Jakie. He knows!
BIN News Editorial Staff
Flair and Balanced
By Calhoun Fawls May 5, 2009 at 7:57 am
And Jim Crow will continue to live with the current legislation. There is no choice. Just a tax credit for those who can already send their kids to private school.
When you have some legislation that pays the full tuition of poor kids, and makes the private schools take them, let us know.
What is proposed now is just letting the white folks make the volvo payments and send their kids to private school. It is not doing one damn thing for the problem kids.
By Wow May 5, 2009 at 9:48 am
Let’s be fair not ALL of us drive Volvo’s or can afford to send our kids to private schools – but we would like the opportunity to recieve a voucher.
The truth is the voucher system will take kids out of the public school system – thus giving the school business system less money/student. With less money they (the SC “public” biz-education) can improve or sink but isnt that their choice. Isnt that what NORMAL people face every day – to do more with less money??? Yet they, the SC Edustablishment wants to spent our money on the Tooteta dance or to pay consultants to tell them what they want to hear or for trips to “conferences” in Calif or some island.
If they cant run the education like a business then they need to get out because they FEAR competition. IF they didnt fear competition then they would have no issues with vouchers.
By Jack May 5, 2009 at 10:48 am
Wow, every child in South Carolina is entitled to an education. So it is impossible to do away with public education, unless you are prepared to amend the South Carolina constitution to eliminate the right to an education and make us the only state in the nation that does not provide education to its children. All of our schools are not bad, despite what you guys would have the public believe. There are plenty of good public schools.
Why should you have to pay less for the public school system than any other citizen in South Carolina? I do not have kids in school, but I pay. Why should you pay less than me?
I know you would like for me and the other residents of the state to help you pay for your kids private education. I would like for you to help me pay for my car, since I do not like the public transportation in my city; but you are not going to help me pay for my car, and I do not want to help you pay for your child’s private school education. If the public schools in your city are bad, become involved and make them better.
By Wow May 5, 2009 at 3:06 pm
No offense Jack but EXACTLY what is the “education” they are providing for our kids? SC is either DEAD LAST or next to LAST in the 50 states as far as the “quality” of education and test results.
Personally I dont care whether the education is private OR public I just want a POSITVE return on my Tax dollars.
I dont think providing a free education, while constutitionally required, should be given unlimited resources. I would say when schools perform they get more money – if not they stay the same or lose money. In fact I would decrease salaries for administrators who cant get their staff/teachers to perform. Teachers want to say THEY are the first line – then treat them that way, either perform and motivate the kids or find another job. Can you tell me what other business lets the slack, underperformers keep their jobs in this economy??
By baker May 6, 2009 at 9:08 am
Wow — I think your idea of competition in this arena is skewed. You do realize, don’t you?, that public schools aren’t allowed to “compete” in the way businesses do. Or, maybe you’d let them. For example, would you allow public schools to keep out troublemakers and struggling students whose parents offer no help on homework, etc.? After, I guess that would help those schools raise test scores and convince people like you that they are “performing,” right? It would probably help public schools to cut costs, too. Moreover, my guess is it would make those schools easier to market to some parents and, thus, more “competitive.”
Private schools can do exactly what I’m talking about. I’m guessing that if you want public schools to “compete,” then you’d have them play by the same rules, correct?
By hoyer May 9, 2009 at 2:29 pm
baker, I agree with your line of thought.
I have taught in both public and private schools. The two private schools I’ve taught in don’t hold a candle to the quality of education the students receive at the two public schools I’ve taught in.
You also need to give some serious thought to how you define a school that is performing. Every time I hear that line about running schools like a business it becomes crystal clear that person has never taught in a public school classroom. As a public school teacher, I have an ethical (and perhaps legal) obligation to every child in my classroom. I might reach him, I might not. He might decide to do his work, he might decide that his life is so messed up because he’s being abused at home that he just doesn’t want to do anything at all. There are millions of possibilities.
Lastly, I have 60 hours beyond a masters degree in my field. I’m nearing completion of a PhD in my field of education (8 years of experience and Masters +30 certification if you care to look up how much I make). I make just more than half of what my brother does, who almost has his bachelors degree. I educate children, he makes sure computer networks function properly. Both jobs are important and we’re both exceptionally good at them. Society values systems administrators more than teachers. That’s the only explanation for the disparity.
If you’re going to expect education to be competitive, education must pay competitive wages.