How Is This Not Two-Faced?

By fitsnews • on May 15, 2009

If there’s one group of people who always have an answer for everything, it’s the defenders of South Carolina’s failed system of public education.

Seriously, if these people worked half as much energy into running our schools as they did manufacturing new excuses for ongoing, systemic failure – well, we might get rid of all that ongoing, systemic failure.

Anyway, one of the tried-and-true “reasons” that these educrats – led by S.C. Superintendent Jim Rex – oppose parental choice can be summed up as follows:

“No public dollars for private schools.”

In fact, educrats have repeated that six-word standard to the point that it’s now reflexive regurgitation to them, although they often modify it with criminal-sounding words like “diverting” or “scam” and they love to throw the word “voucher” in, which ignores the fact that there are no vouchers in the current parental choice bill.

But is this argument ideologically consistent? Or even plain old consistent?

From our friends at The Voice:

(Rex’s State Department) recently issued a press release calling for greater awareness and utilization of the H.O.P.E., L.I.F.E and Palmetto Fellows Scholarships, which support students attending both public and private schools.

Similarly, State Superintendent Jim Rex has personally fundraised for non-profit scholarship granting organizations that serve low-income students making higher educational choices.

But, on the other hand, Jim Rex and his public school monopolist friends are adamantly opposed to providing similarly scholarship opportunities for students in grades K through 12 (even when the scholarships are privately funded).

So let’s get this straight.

Choice – specifically in the form of public dollars for private schools – is fine at the higher ed level. In fact, Rex will get out and raise money for it.

Rex also supports public dollars going to private schools in the pre-K marketplace. And guess what, pre-K and higher ed in South Carolina – while not the greatest systems in the world – are head and shoulders above our last-in-the-nation K-12 system.

Could it be that part of the reason for that is choice?

So why is “public dollars for private schools” so wrong at the K-12 level? Particularly when it’s such a small fraction of the public money spent per child?

We’re sure our comment section will be littered with the latest educrat spin because, like we said, these people may not be able to run our schools, but they do have an answer for everything …

Comments

By Toyota Kawaski on May 15th, 2009 at 8:25 am

Yesah Mr. Rich right away!!!

By Heather on May 15th, 2009 at 8:52 am

The link on the Voice talking about Rex’s personal fund raising was a drive he did for the United Negro College Fund. Considering that Blacks are the number one most under served group of his students in his schools, and the least likely to emerge from public schools ready for college, offering the few who do “escape” easier access to private money for college is pretty offensive!

By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' on May 15th, 2009 at 9:35 am

What a hypocrite. But wait, I thought their credo wasn’t “no public dollars for private schools.” I thought it was “no public dollars for anybody but us.” Although our public school system utterly fails at providing a proper education to its students, it remains the single largest jobs program in the State. That’s all these educrats care about: their phat paychecks.

Oh, and an occasional retreat to the Tater Teachers Camp. http://www.clemson.edu/newsroom/articles/2008/march/teacher_renewal.php5

By Jack on May 15th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

If the so called School Choice folks were honest and were really interested in helping kids in failing schools, almost no one would object to a system where those who are attending a failing public school and cannot afford private school get a scholarship to attend private school until such time as their public school is no longer failing. But that is not what you want. You want every child in private school regardless of the quality of public school available to him; and regardless of his ability to pay for his private school, to get a government hand out at my expense.

By peter pye on May 15th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

Base students cost allocated to Districts is dropping and will go below $2000 with another cut. You cannot board your dog in a private doggie day care for a one year on that kind of money!

The Guv’s tax credit proposal is on top of a $2500 -$4500 tax credit already on the books for those who generally earn more than 200% of the poverty line ($40,000 for a family of 4)but certainly applies to his friends. It’s what once was the “middle class to low income group that is not going to qualify for a tax credit. The “lower end” is rising fast in numbers, you know those who are getting bounced regularly as one business after the other is shuttered or who become ill and now have no health insurance and no job or those who work 2 or 3 part time $7-8 hr. jobs, includes those who can’t count anymore on pay increases. Inludes those who are or who are on the way to underemployment of gigantic proportionsd due to failed efforts by all to require job skill training courses in high schools for the “non-college bound” who if the don;t drop out (55% state wide) do not qualify to get to TEC much less to higher ed so the jobs the Guv’s Dept. of Commerce did find even at $8-$12 hr. are beyond reach.

A living wage for many citizens with a family of 4, particularly those are the future are young bought into “the dream” to buy a small home, a used car and actually had 2.5 kids who need public schools.

Yes, there’s a place for money in the private system for those wanting out of bad public schools and the state is doing nothing to support scholarships for those that want it at the k-12 level. It should come as no surprise that the private sector and lots of tax provisions that help corporations make decisions to get involved look for example to Student Service Organizations (SSO) open in many other states. SSOs are filling up right now with corporate $$$$$ from big companies currying public acclaim for donated scholarships to private K-12.

Why pull public funds out of K-12 and turn into a competition among poor communities ? If you want to see a mess with educational competition run amuck in the public arena check out higher ed who is now positioning themselves used skyrocketing tuitions to become “The Top 20 Best” and seating fewer than 45% of the South Carolina applicants who actually qualify so out of state-rs can pay higher tuition.

Local districts must add on average $5000 to the pittance of base funding simply to operate and we all know property taxes are in SC now capped except to account for inflation and growth factor whic his also capped. We parents get to watch sales tax collections drop yer over year. True, Marion 7 is among the poorest with almost no tax base and spends a lot more on average, about $14,000 total per student. But by removing tax funds and then shaking budget box with fewer dollars to distribute, ALL public schools will get fewer funds. Then we can slap ourselves on the back for closing public schools, shutting down districts and eventually make learning an online experience in the public sector, or contract with the private sector, a real winner. Remember the lesson we learned with the DJJ privatization experiment “to save tax dollars” a few years ago? What a great way to eliminate overhead!

Let’s get real, this tax credit / voucher crap is a “rich man’s game” being played. Hats off the the Guv…one more time in his support of minimal education for the most.

By BIN News Editorial Staff on May 15th, 2009 at 8:37 pm

Someone tell Howie, again, that vouchers are dead in SC.

Howie’s voucher clowns are such m@r@ns.

Vouchers are dead. Grave Yard Dead.

sic(k) willie and Howie’s other voucher clowns (yes, including all those paid for in the Legislature) will pay a price for their voucher scams.

Count on it, you voucher clowns.

BIN New Editorial Staff
Flair and Balanced

By baker on May 15th, 2009 at 11:32 pm

The simple response to Will’s post about Jim Rex’s alleged inconsistency is, in my opinion, that the K-12 education system and the higher education system are two very, very different things. One is a matter of compulsory education, free for everyone, while the other is a somewhat exclusive affair even in the public system. They’re quite hard to compare. Several key points:

1. The matter of “competition” — School choice proponents talk about competition between public schools and private schools as a key benefit of choice. It’s quite clear, however, that public and private K-12 schools play by two very different sets of rules, which obviously goes against the whole idea of legitimate competition: It is very significant, for one thing, that private schools can determine the clientele they want to serve. They can keep out students with low test scores or bad behavior. This sets a tone in their schools and goes a long way to guaranteeing success (as defined by test scores and behavior). Further, this enviroment is marketed to “customers” — parents.

Public schools must deal with anyone who shows up, which means they can’t guarantee test scores and must often deal with discipline issues not found in private schools. In fact, if a kid gets kicked out of Hammond Academy for skipping class or cussing out a teacher, the public school system has to accept that student….that’s a bizarre concept of “competition.”

In the higher education arena, the idea of competition is fairly credible. USC or Clemson can compete with private colleges by sending out recruiters to high schools, by offering niche programs that only the wealthiest K-12 public schools could consider offering, by raising private funds through alumni, by signing gazillion dollar contracts for TV rights for football, and so on. Unlike their K-12 counterparts, public universities are not required to take all-comers — they can set admission standards that, like private schools, help create a particular academic environment. And, if I’m not mistaken, they have a good deal of freedom in setting tuition rates, so that if they aren’t satisfied with what they’re getting from the state, public higher education institutions can charge their “customers” more money. It doesn’t work that way with the K-12 system.

2. The whole concept of “choice” for the student or family is different between K-12 vs. higher ed. If you’re a 10-year-old poor kid in Clarendon County, and you’ve got a voucher or scholarship or whatever….BUT, there’s only one private school, and that school has admission standards that keep you out because of grades, or your parents can’t drive you to the school because of their work hours…..well, in that case, you don’t have real choice.

On the other hand, if you’re an 18-year-old from Clarendon County, and you’ve got a state grant to choose a college — public or private — then you can most likely make something work. You can drive yourself or get on a bus (not dependent on your parents’ transportation issues or work schedules) and head out of town to college. You can get into a dormitory and live wherever the school is, which is very different from being able to only choose among schools located in your hometown. In other words, the CHOICE for a college-aged student is very different from the reality of choice for a kid in the K-12 system.

There are exceptions, of course. Quite a few college-aged students can’t easily leave their home, for any number of reasons. That is why it’s important for our state to have strong local technical and community colleges. But, generally speaking, I think it’s absolutely true that college students can actually make use of choices provided by state grants or scholarships in ways that aren’t feasible for youngsters who can’t leave home, depend on parents for transportation (or a school bus, of course), and can choose only among schools in a local community — in many cases, communities that don’t have much to offer.

Bottom line: We are talking about two systems that are fundamentally different. Two different populations of students with entirely different circumstances, in totally different positions to take advantage of educational choices. In no way an apples-to-apples comparison.