Chellis Backs Parental Choice
We’re pretty much impervious to political shock around here.
In fact, we take pride in our ability to see the S.C. political chess board several moves ahead of … well, anybody.
There’s absolutely nothing that surprises us – except S.C. Treasurer Converse Chellis endorsing parental choice.
Which he did today.
Wait … huh?
Are you kidding us?
Nope … it’s true.
In fact, Chellis not only endorsed the “S.C. Education Opportunity Act,” he wrote an amazing column in La Liberbad (a.k.a. The Greenville News) about it.
Seriously, Chellis not only masterfully explains the financial common sense behind the bill, but refers to its passage as a “moral imperative.”
Yes, Converse Chellis said that, people.
“In a time when we cannot afford to throw money at failing programs, this is one example where saving the state money will also significantly enhance lives,” he wrote.
Amazing. That’s this whole debate in a nutshell.
From Chellis’ column:
The South Carolina Educational Opportunity Act creates a path for thousands of South Carolina children to earn an education that helps them to break the cycle of poverty plaguing so many of our families.
The bill, S. 520, sponsored by a bipartisan coalition of state senators, creates a tax credit for parents who send their children to private schools. The tax credit will go to those who home school their children and individuals and businesses who donate to student scholarship organizations.
An analysis by the former director of the South Carolina Department of Revenue, Burnet Maybank III, shows that the legislation will save taxpayers $5.4 million dollars in the first year. That number could be much higher depending upon how many students opt for private schools if the bill becomes law. He estimates 3,790 children would take advantage of the credits – a figure from a 2005 Board of Economic Advisors analysis of similar legislation.
Chellis also refutes the establishment fiction that the bill “won’t help poor people” by highlighting the $360 million that has been donated in support of academic scholarships for low income students in Pennsylvania.
“Children’s Scholarship Fund Philadelphia, which projects it will award 3,300 scholarships next year to low income K-8th grade students and receives about 40 percent of its money through the tax credit program, has tracked its students,” Chellis writes. “Ninety-five percent of them graduate high school on time and 90 percent are going on to college. This is a phenomenal record given that its students are chosen by lottery, all are low-income, and that the graduation rate in Philadelphia public schools is 50 percent.”
Needless to say, we’re speechless.
In fact, we refused to click on the link for several hours today because we thought somebody was just wasting our time.
It goes without saying that it’s a rare moment when this website has had anything kind to say about Converse Chellis.
Today, however, he gets props from us (big time) for being one of the first status quo politicians in S.C. to openly embrace this long overdue concept.
Let’s hope more follow his lead on this issue …
Comments
By Steve on May 7th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
That pic of the palmetto flag is the same as the one SC Dept. of Commerce ueses all the time. They use that same picture everywhere up there from what I understand. Where did you get it?
By Mike on May 7th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
How long before the first knucklehead chimes in to say that Chellis “seems fixated on vouchers.” That stunning piece of debate stategery just never gets old…
By GnuBerry on May 7th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
You seem obsessed with vouchers.
By FITS on May 7th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Steve-
Good call on the flag pic.
Mike-
Good prediction.
Gnu-
Keep at it. You’re like BIN, but less original.
-FITS
By baker on May 8th, 2009 at 12:13 am
A couple things about this op-ed stand out to me:
(1) Comparing private school options in Philadelphia — a rather compact urban area, the sixth largest city in America — to the private school options in any South Carolina community, much less our poorest and most rural counties, is just really quite goofy. Just goofy.
(2) If our state’s TREASURER doesn’t understand government finances well enough to get that a public school losing a few students here and there to a private school doesn’t lead to significant cost-savings, then maybe SC is in worse financial shape than we might have figured.
Moreover, in Jasper County — just for one example — has about 750 children in private school. If I understand the “Education Opportunity Act” correctly, a tax credit will eventually apply to the tuition of EACH of those kids. At roughly $2,400 (a little more, actually) per student, that’s $1.8 million…..out of ONE county!! And that’s students already in private school, so there’s no claim that public schools will save anything while losing that $1.8 million.
Where does the $1.8 million come from? Out of Jasper County Schools? Out of the state’s overall public education funding? Out of some other area of state government? How about a tax hike in order to fund those private schools?
$1.8 million from Jasper County alone….how can Converse Chellis or Will Folks or anyone else claim this is going to save public schools or the state money?!?!
By Trey on May 8th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Not that anybody “get’s this”, but once all of SC’s children are under one funding umbrella again all of this political division around what works for kids will no longer exist. When integration happened, 35% of the states kids went to private school. That same 35% more or less became automatic, forever enemies of public school. That political split and rancor, more than any other thing has killed education in SC.
If this bill causes all kids to feed at the public funding trough again political divisions will end and everyone will begin working together.
By baker on May 8th, 2009 at 8:53 am
That’s an interesting concept, Trey, but I don’t know….”division” may also have to do with the fact that there will continue to be private schools that won’t accept certain kids with state money (scholarships or tax credits).
In any case, I want to know where the state treasurer think $1.8 million for Jasper County alone should be cut.
By Scott on May 8th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Baker,
What happens if those 750 kids in Jasper County went back to the schools in Jasper County at $11,000 per child? That would be $8.2 million that the taxpayers would have to come up with that they currently don’t have to worry about.
By baker on May 8th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Scott:
Interesting and valid consideration you bring up. But you’re ducking the question. Proponents of the “Education Opportunity Act” are claiming that the plan will save public schools (and the state) money. And I think it’s pretty darn clear that if just one small county will lose roughly $1.8 million when the thing is fully implemented, then the cost-savings claim is totally absurd. That’s, in my opinion, the issue — a very simple response to the claims of “Education Opportunity Act” supporters.
Now, I’ll do my best not to duck your question. The existence of private schools under the current arrangement (no public money going to K-12 private schools) clearly does save the state money. Moreover, there are private schools that add positive things to our communities in other ways. All that is important to apprciate.
By there are a couple other key points.
For one thing, greater participation in public schools — especially involving well-to-do parents who are well-educated — can have a dramatically positive impact on schools. They contribute time and leadership. They hold school officials accountable. If their children are good students, they help set a high standard in public schools. By the same logic, the absence of those folks can have a negative impact on public schools. And so in counties where, for the most part, the whites left right after integration, that leadership and involvement void has taken a toll.
And, if you can believe this, there are school districts where people have stayed involved and have actually wanted to pay more in taxes in order to have better facilities and programs for their children. In those cases, contrary to taxes-are-bad logic, somewhat higher tax rates have actually been widely embraced.
Additionally, just as it has been clearly shown that losing students to a private school doesn’t guarantee a particular dollar amount can be saved in public education, the same can be said for adding a student. In other words, if a public school gains a few students here and there, it’s not easy to calculate exact added costs. The state might have to kick in a per-pupil contribution, but it isn’t clear at all that local taxes would have to be affected.
A sudden influx of 800 new students into Jasper County public schools would, of course, result in increased spending. But had those students been there all along — in other words, had “white flight” not occurred — the school system might have adjusted in any number of ways. For example, the high school might simply be larger. It costs more to run a larger high school, of course, but the costs generally go down on a per-student basis in a larger setting.
By Ron on May 8th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
R. Ford and C. Chellis are running for statewide office in 2010. They’ve heretofore been venomous opponents of Putting Parents in Charge via tax credits or vouchers. Now all of a sudden they need campaign funds and have “changed their colors” in my view to get Mr. Rich and the SCRG coalition campaign funding. IT NEVER ENDS!! WHAT A SCAM!! WHAT SCUMBAGS!! Hopefully the voters will see through the Chellis scheme, and most assuredly liberal SC voters will send R. Ford home at the end of the primary if not before. Mr. Ford will then likely face opposition for his Senate seat in 2012 by angry leftist educrats who are feeling betrayed. Ford’s career will be over at least by 2012 and they’ll(educrats voting in the GOP primary) get to Chellis next year. Robert and Converse ARE DONE!
By Ron on May 8th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
and GOOD RIDDANCE!
By BIN News Editorial Staff on May 8th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Can we get an Amen for Ron!! Tell it all, brother! Tell it all!
Ford and Converse are political voucher pimps pandering to Howie and his voucher clowns at SCRG, Voice for Voucher Scams, and this porn site.
An example of sic(k) willie’s latest porn:
http://www.fitsnews.com/2009/05/08/rihanna-nude-pics-leaked/#comments
But getting back to the subject. Will, is Howie paying you directly now, or are you still laundering his money through SCRG?
In this economy no member of the Legislature with any integrity will vote for it. Only those who have been bought by Howie.
BIN News Editorial Staff
Flair and Balanced
Trackbacks