Tax Credits Would Ease Budget Strain, Improve Achievement
By Randy Page | Great schools are not just an economic necessity for our state; they are a fundamental right for the children living in South Carolina.
In the past decade, countless well-intended policies for school improvement have been discussed and adopted by state lawmakers and local school boards alike.
The results have been uniformly disappointing.
In 2000, the Education Oversight Committee set 10-year improvement goals for our public schools. In the past nine years, only two of the 10 benchmarks have been met. According to five of the yardsticks, public school performance actually worsened.
South Carolina was ranked 50th in “promoting power” by Southern Regional Education Board. The ranking measures the percentage of ninth-grade students who progress to 12th grade in three years. The group also found that half of S.C. public high schools are “dropout factories,” where graduation rates remain below 50 percent.
This failure is a great injustice to the capable and ambitious students of South Carolina. It is a slap in the face to the parents and grandparents who want the best for them.
Public support for education, the favorite scapegoat of school administrators, is not to blame.
South Carolina’s 85 public school districts spent over $8.4 billion in local, state, and federally raised tax money last year. The money, more than $12,000 per pupil, funded an enormous and complicated array of programs but failed to improve student achievement.
The time has come for real innovation. We must find new ways to support parents and teachers who are committed to quality instruction. This can be done without siphoning money away from the school district officials who continue to insist $12,000 is not enough money to educate a child.
Luckily, there’s a way to take the financial burden off local school districts as well as the general fund of the state: Tax credits.
Tax credits could be used to give parents an incentive to let their children attend other schools when the families believe these might be better. Parents would enjoy options they don’t now have. Public schools would retain the programmatic funding associated with that child, and save the money on teaching that child and would enjoy lower student-to-teacher ratios.
Too good to be true? Not according to former State Department of Revenue Director Burnie Maybank. He authored a detailed financial analysis on how the windfall would help local schools and how the budget of the general fund of the state actually would be better off. School choice is a broad approach to public education. It is not a case of public schools OR private schools, but instead public AND private (and charter, and magnet, and homeschool).
These options, facilitated through tax credits for parents, will put real teeth into the accountability and transparency reforms we have already passed. Everyone in South Carolina agrees that parents deserve more choices. The question is whether we can, and should, rely solely on public schools to offer such options. The lesson of the decade is that the public school establishment, like any other large bureaucracy, often needs a little nudge to make good on its own promises.
The author is president of South Carolinians for Responsible Government.
Comments
By Billy Bob on December 28th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
We need some MAJOR changes – - just not sure this is the way. This article really makes no compelling argument.
By Steve on December 28th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Until you hold private schools to the same standards as public schools, such as accepting any child that shows up on the doorstep and the same testing requirements, they shouldn’t get one penny of public support – direct funding or tax credits.
By Rick on December 28th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Check out countries that let parents use the tax dollar to the taxpayers advantage. Where there is competition in the system, the system must be more customer focused to get the dollar. Why is Wal-Mart a winner while their competators work like hell to catch up. Because they have a plan that works. As long as Uncle owns the schools, they’ll continue to decline because the plan is to maintain their grip over education, not to improve it or the delivery system. Time to try new things….
By Ynot on December 28th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
throwing money at a bad system most often does not change things
By Trey on December 28th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
“Public schools would retain the programmatic funding associated with that child”. Why would you do that? The dollar worth of a child should follow that child in any kind of a consideration of a choice system. Leaving part of the funding behind is only rewarding schools or districts that cannot run a competitive program that parents want. Why create a protectionist approach to the existing schools, use the free market system and let the dollars follow the student.
Trey
By baker on December 28th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I’m guessing that Randy Page supported the school choice batted around last year whereby parents of all income categories would have gotten money or private school — including those with children already in private schools. Did Mr. Maybank explain how that would have saved the state or local districts money? I’m guessing that in numerous counties there are hundreds, if not thousands, of students already in private schools. So the state would be giving their parents money and not saving the public schools a dime, right? This will save the public system money?
And there are other problems, of course, that are pretty straightforward, if you look at it: For instance, if a school loses 20 students, they can’t necessarily cut any expenses. If the 20 students are spread across 6 grades, then most likely the school can’t lay off a teacher, cut the lights off in a classroom, cancel a bus route, call off the orchestra program or anything of major cost-savings significance. Yet, the school would still lose money that “follows” the 20 students.
You can argue that that’s a great thing for “competition” or what-have-you — but it’s hard to make that case that money is saved.
But all that aside…..how does Page or Maybank explain that giving thousands and thousands of parents money for their kids who already are in private school will save the public schools money?
By No An Educrat on December 28th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Just a coincidence that the Dept. of Ed released the End of Course test results for the state on the Friday before Christmas? His political games are obvious to some of us.
http://ed.sc.gov/news/more.cfm?articleID=1399
Not much to brag about in those results. English down, Math same. The scores on the history exam are abysmal. Take a look at Allendale – more than 90% of the students flunked the history test. What’s the point of even bothering to administer the test if you know the students are going to fail?
These numbers are terrible across the state:
“For 2008-09, grade distribution for English was 10.2 percent A, 15 percent B, 23.7 percent C, 19.5 percent D and 31.6 percent F. Grade distribution for algebra was 16.1 percent A, 15.7 percent B, 23.5 percent C, 21.9 percent D and 22.8 percent F.”
Half the kids in the state got a D or worse in English and nearly as many in Math.
A few more decades and things will improve right? It has to be Sanford’s fault for saying the word “voucher” and scaring kids into failure.
By Jack on December 28th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
I’ve got a better way to save money. Don’t give a tax credit to anyone. If parents want their kids in private school they can put them there and pay for it out of their pocket. Why pick my pocket to help pay for their kids private education. The only people who could possibly benefit from this system are people who make a lot of money and can already afford private schooling.
If you restrict the credit to families with children in failing schools, I might agree, but that would not accomplish the goal of getting money to those who are already paying for private school regardless of the quality of their local public school.
By Liberty For Me on December 28th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
This is real easy..gives us back the money that is wasted on the dept of education…and abolish it.Then we can return to educating our children with a useful curriculum.Have competetion and efficency in schools by giving tax paying citizens choice and say in their childrens education
By Lynn on December 28th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
This proposes nothing but a handout to families that already have, or would have, children in private schools. Tax credits for private schools are just welfare for those who don’t need it, irrelevant and insufficient for those who do need better educational opportunities. Like it or not, only the public schools can solve South Carolina’s problems.
By Bob on December 29th, 2009 at 6:44 am
Jack,
First of all, we would not be picking your pocket by keeping some of my money. You are picking mine by making me pay for a failed system I will not use. My money is mine, not yours.
Second, school spending is measured in dollars per student. If a percentage of the money allocated per child followed that child to private school, then there is one less child in public school, and a percentage of his money does not follow. That increases spending per student for the children left behind.
Budget under the control of the corrupt educrats goes down, but that is what galls you, huh?
By HMMM on December 29th, 2009 at 8:27 am
That’s some logic there, Bob. I want my money back for all the stuff I pay for and don’t use. I’ve never been to state prison, never used the fire department or public transportation or a public university or a VA hospital. Don’t visit state parks much either. Pretty much all I’m on the hook for are roads.
By baker on December 29th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Bob — I spelled it out for you in my earlier post. But here goes again:
1. One recent plan, endorsed by the likes of Will Folks and Randy Page, I’m pretty sure, would have given money back to parents who ALREADY have their kids in private school. So, if a county like Jasper has a couple private schools with 300 kids each (and pretty much all the white, affluent students….will they accept struggling students?), the public system would simply lose that money — no costs to be cut at all.
2. Even where the public schools would lose some students, there are multiple ways of looking at it. If a school lost 200 students, then, yes, the system could probably cut some significant costs.
But considering private school capacity, along with admission requirements and costs remaining after the tax credit, I’m thinking it’s far more likely that a typical public school would see a handful of students leave. Even if 40 left from a K-6 public elementary school — if those students are spread across the 7 grades, then where is the school really going to save money?
This “money following the child” and “one less child to educate” logic doesn’t really work in this case. Losing 6 fourth graders is not likely going to be enough to cut a teaching position, or cut a bus route….or to buy fewer books for the library, or fewer basketballs for PE class, or to save on the heat bill……
Sorry, Bob…..your and Randy Page’s economic logic doesn’t really work.
Oh, and HMMM’s points are excellent, too.
By Toyota Kawaski on December 30th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Yeash Mr.Rich we can let the HNIC ink a blow hard piece on our self gloating web site.Yesah anything for you sirs.
By FITSNews on December 30th, 2009 at 8:37 am
TK-
The Spartanburg Herald-Journal (owned by the New York Times) and several other papers ran this piece … before we did.
By all means, though, continue to play up this repetitive “anything for you, sirs” line if you think it’s compelling.
-FITS
By Marginal Cost on December 30th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Baker – you clearly do not understand the EFA, the EIA, or the basics of programmatic funding.
Toyota – antisemitism is soooo last century.
HMMM – do you want “your” money back for all the public goods provided by churches, charities, nonprofits, and other non-government organizations?
Lynn – if you care about equality, why not use choice to extend access that wealthy families have to low-income kids, rather than criticize ambitious parents who are looking for the best classroom for their child?
School Choice has worked in other states and even other countries to raise test scores and reduce inequality. Why do some people here think change is always a bad thing?
By baker on January 1st, 2010 at 11:41 am
No, Maginal Cost, I think I do understand the issue.