… AND USING YOUR MONEY TO DO IT
As we’ve noted on numerous previous occasions, the parental choice debate in South Carolina is not about kids, or about education, or even about money; it’s about power and prestige for an elite group of taxpayer funded “educators” who claim to speak for your children’s best interests.
It’s also a debate that’s beginning (again) in earnest at the S.C. State House …
This week, a S.C. House of Representatives subcommittee will take up a so-called “compromise” school choice proposal. This legislation is based on existing programs in Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Arizona and is narrowly targeted to assist low-income students and children with disabilities. We believe the bill will do a lot of good for a lot of kids … if passed.
Still, the proposed legislation leaves plenty to be desired.
Most importantly, it lacks the universal nature of the legislation introduced by Eric Bedingfield earlier in the session, not to mention the sweeping proposal that was considered – and killed by aisle-crossing RINOS – last year. Many of these same “Republicans in Name Only” are now seeking political cover by signing on to this new “compromise” bill, all the while secretly hoping that the legislation will die in the State Senate (which is similarly RINO-infested).
We also believe that these flip-floppers are also banking on the likelihood that this limited, means-tested measure will fail to draw the sort of broad constituency that a universal parental choice bill would create.
Still, let’s put aside for a moment the fact that expanded choice helps parents get more engaged in their kids education … and has been proven to raise both public and private school test scores through the power of competition and innovation.
The real story here, according to the taxpayer-funded lobbyists, is that this scaled back version of school choice will “cost up to $37 million.” In fact, several massive statewide emails went out late Tuesday (examples here and here) to unwitting school bureaucrats and “leaders” trying to rally school employees against the bill.
Once again, using taxpayer time and taxpayer resources, government “educators” will be assailing lawmakers about the world-ending impact of parental choice. That’s a shame … and a real insult to the children for whom they claim to speak.
Lawmakers getting "distorted" parental choice claims.
It’s also especially disingenuous in light of the small scale of the proposal being debated this week.
Let’s consider their argument for a moment: Public schools will collect over $9 billion from the taxpayers this year (not to mention money for buildings), and over $3.3 billion of it will come from state coffers.
The alleged “impact” of the school choice bill would be $36 million in “lost” state revenues. Even if we suspend belief for a moment – and ignore the well-documented fact that other states with similar programs are showing school choice provides net savings to taxpayers statewide – the math just doesn’t add up.
Why are these educrats so worried about a program that would represent just one percent of the size of their annual state entitlement? And, in the scheme of their total funding, just four-tenths of one percent of their taxpayer funded largesse?
Why aren’t they attacking other larger state programs, which according to their zero-sum logic would also eat into revenues earmarked for them?
For example, where was this outrage over the recent “Innovista” investment debacle? Or the competitive grant slush funds? Or the open-tab incentives for Amazon and Boeing?
Parental choice is different … not because it draws money from public schools (this has never occurred in any of the twenty-plus states with choice programs), it’s different because it threatens the educrats’ power and their ability to seize the moral high ground.
The mere discussion of the choice issue invites awkward and painful questions about the hundreds of thousands of poor kids stuck in South Carolina’s persistently failing public schools – and the tens of thousands of students who fail to graduate on time each year from our worst-in-the-nation system. It also triggers talk of South Carolina’s expanding wealth and race gaps, and the gerrymandering of school and district lines based on those socioeconomic factors.
Nonetheless, some especially outlandish claims are being made on behalf of this status quo this year.
In her missive this week to thousands of desk-bound bureaucrats, Beth Phibbs of the S.C. Association of School Administrators (SCASA) wrote that the watered-down parental choice compromise being considered by the House subcommittee is “still very harmful and costly!” Meanwhile Debbie Elmore at the S.C. School Boards Association (SCSBA) asked “how can the General Assembly even consider a bill… when the state needs more law enforcement troopers!”
Really? South Carolina has an estimated $900 million in surplus funds for the coming year’s budget – on top of the $1.3 billion in new money it’s already spending this year. Within our state’s record-setting $22.1 billion budget, taxpayers are shelling out a record $11,754 per child on public “education” – a figure that doesn’t include income from local bond revenue, investments, and transfers between funds and government agencies. This mountain of new money comes on top of back-to-back years of record education funding (click here and here for those totals). Not only that, school districts are ripping off even more money from local businesses thanks to an ill-advised 2006 “tax swap,” with businesses being forced to pick up the tab.
Not only that, our state’s 85 school districts are currently sitting on nearly $1 billion in unspent reserve funds – a pot of cash that grew by $150 million from the previous year.
What are we getting for that investment? Nothing but failure …
Two months ago, it was revealed that 76 percent of South Carolina public schools (831 out of 1,037) failed to make adequate yearly progress during the 2010-11 academic year. Nationally, 48 percent of public schools failed to reach this threshold.
Meanwhile according to the latest “Diplomas Count” report – released last June by Education Week – only 58.6 percent of South Carolina high school students graduate on time. That’s the second-lowest graduation rate in the entire nation (trailing only New Mexico) and is well below the national average of 71.7 percent.
Also, according to the College Board – which administers the SAT – public school students in the Palmetto state scored a composite 1,427 (out of 2,400) on last year’s test – a 12-point decline from the previous year’s results. Nationwide, public school scores dropped by 10 points – meaning that the Palmetto state is once again falling further behind the rest of America (which itself is falling further behind the rest of the world).
Finally, according to the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) – a.k.a. “The Nation’s Report Card” – South Carolina student performance on math and reading exams was statistically no different last year than it was in 2009. However, fourth graders in the Palmetto State saw their reading scores decline. As a result, a whopping 39 percent of fourth-graders in South Carolina now score below basic proficiency in reading.
Of course to hear the educrats tell it, these abysmal results are not the fault of our state’s K-12 monopoly … they are the result of administrators who are “distracted” by the debate over parental choice.
That’s ridiculous … every bit as ridiculous, in fact, as dumping more money into the same failed system and expecting a different result.
***
By Jason J February 29, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Can wait to see SCEA and friends bring all the unwitting teachers in to testify against the bill, as those clowns keep siphoning money from their paychecks and classrooms!
What happen to the choice bill (4576?) that included tax credits for teachers? Seems like an obvious piece of the puzzle.
By Soxinsc February 29, 2012 at 1:14 pm
My only concern with using the NAEP statistics is it compares a set of 4th-graders in one year to a set of 4th-graders in another year. The true measure should be what the 4th-graders are when they are 5th-graders, 6th-graders, etc. Looking at the data from that perspective SC fares slightly better, but still not great and still plenty of room for improvement.
By Tunes'n'news February 29, 2012 at 1:52 pm
I was getting nervous. I had read about half of a school choice article on Fits and hadn’t noticed “last-in-the-nation” or “worst-in-the-nation” in the text yet. What a relief when I found it.
By Liberaltarian February 29, 2012 at 1:53 pm
The problem with the current bill is that it is a $4000 income tax credit. To take advantage of it, a parent would have to have over $90,000 of income to get the full credit.
If you are making over $90K, you are not poor.
The bill is meant to subsidize Hammond and Heathwood, not aimed at helping the poor.
By Frank February 29, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Wrong.
There is a scholarship program for low income kids and one for kids who are disabled.
Pretty much exactly the kids who suffer the most in the public school system.
Read the bill before you make stupid anonymous comments on the internet.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess119_2011-2012/bills/4894.htm
By Liberaltarian February 29, 2012 at 4:49 pm
The scholarship program is capped at $15 million.
How many private schools is that going to open in Allendale? Bamberg? Jasper???
None.
By Jeff February 29, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Liberaltarian … it is actually a $4,000 tax DEDUCTION, not a credit. Major difference. If the taxpayer taking the deduction is in the highest SC tax bracket of 7%, the deduction is only worth $280 to the family ($4,000 x 7% = $280). One less kid in public school for the cost of only $280 to the State, not a bad deal since the state spends nearly $12,000 per child.
By Jan February 29, 2012 at 3:32 pm
“As we’ve noted on numerous previous occasions, the parental choice debate in South Carolina is not about kids, or about education, or even about money….”
If you had stopped this article after the word education I could have agreed with you. Its about giving money, to parents of kids in private school whether they need it or not period. The rest of the article is just more of the same ole BS.
Since I help pay for schools, please use as much money as necessary to fight the people trying to force me to help them pay for their kids private school bills.
This new bill will go no where, because the people who are pushing the tax credit/voucher schemes do not care what happens to low income children or children with disabilities.
By Jeff February 29, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Hi Jan. As noted in the article, the impact of the bill is $36 million annually. The scholarship portion is $15 million for low-income children (reduced or free school lunch) and $10 million for special needs children. So $25 million goes to kids in REAL need, and $11 million is for independent school kids in general. As I noted above for Liberaltarian, the MOST the tax deduction means to a “rich” family in the 7% tax bracket is $280. A small price to pay in my opinion to reduce the class size in public schools. We pay nearly $12,000 per child in public school, we could send them all to the fanciest of private schools for that kind of money. I would love to know your thoughts, as I am trying to figure out why there is opposition to this bill – if there is a real reason other than what the article alleges of power and control by the teacher pseudo-union bosses. Thanks.
By Old Bike Dude February 29, 2012 at 4:12 pm
The key to gaining universal support for school choice and school vouchers is to insure that every school in the state, public or private, is playing by the same rules. Until then it’s apples and oranges and nothing will get passed. Now let’s get a show of hands of private schools that wish to abide by public school rules. I thought so.
By Jeff February 29, 2012 at 11:48 pm
Hi Old Bike Dude …. perhaps consider the reverse … give a show of hands of public schools that wish to abide by the private school rules. I’d hope 100%. We don’t need to saddle the private schools with needless public school regulation … we need to RELEASE the public schools from their bonds and let them focus on teaching our palmetto state kids. Your point is valid, lets just think out of the box and fix the real problem as opposed to spreading the problem around. Thanks in advance for your reply.
Pingback: Why SC Educrats Are Attacking A Scaled Down Choice Bill – FITSNews
By Calhoun Fawls March 1, 2012 at 12:48 am
Two things. First, there are no good private school choices in the the places that drag SC education numbers down. Second, any infusion of public money into private schools will subject them to government regulation. That is what happened to private colleges and universities. This is all about a crazy rich man paying politicos to push his not very well thought out ideas and lazy politicians going on long with it because they do not want to do the hard work of actually reforming education.
By Jeff March 1, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Hi “Calhoun Fawls” … who is the crazy rich many you are referring to? Sorry, just don’t know the players in that respect. Thanks.
By Calhoun Fawls March 3, 2012 at 1:12 am
Howard Rich…he spends money paying politicos to tout his crazy ideas all over the nation. South Carolina is small, it is the target state for the billionaire’s nutty ideas. And, the things is he is going to get his way. With Bobby Harrell eating up dollars from the typical sources for his lowcountry shindigs and the economy, the only money to be found is from Rich and his people.
By Not exactly March 1, 2012 at 7:55 am
“We pay nearly $12,000 per child in public school, we could send them all to the fanciest of private schools for that kind of money.”
Actually, the state’s General Fund only pays $2000 per child. Total state funding is $4000 per student. The rest is local and federal.
Tuition at the “fanciest” private schools — Heathwood and Hammond in Columbia, Christ Church in Greenville — is over $15,000 per year.
By Jeff March 1, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Hi “Not Exactly” … aren’t each of us Federal, State and local taxpayers? I wish I was just a State taxpayer, but unfortunately I pay taxes to all 3, so “we” do pay nearly $12,000 per year per student. Average tuition in SC at independent schools is actually only $4,400 / year … so yes there are some at $15k + … but $12,000 will get you a pretty “fancy” school. Talk this through with me a little bit … is more money the solution, or freeing our public school system from unnecessary regulation the solution? There is only so much money, seems to me we need to think out of the box. More money to teachers and students – Yes. More money to bloated overhead to comply with insane regulation – No. Thoughts?
By ceilidh10 March 1, 2012 at 11:13 am
Although I am not a Catholic, and in fact despite that cult, I did go to Catholic schools growing up. It was an outstanding education with rigid discipline, and high expectations of students. I am so glad that I got educated when I got educated.
We are being wiped out by the other children of the earh, China, India, and we will be wiping their asses as their servants and housecleaners if we do not get our act together.
A firm employing 250,000 in China assembles the iPhone for Apple. What the hell is that about ???? Why are we not doing that? Apple is an American corp.
This state stinks. Nothing will ever save this state’s pisspoor educational ranking and sorry ass genetic makeup.
I love this state. But I am angry that this great place with some really great people has to pulled down to the lowest common denominator.
By BIN News Editorial Staff March 1, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Just more voucher scam rhetoric from the voucher pimps.
The latest phrase is “parental choice.”
What voucher cr@p.
S.C. already has parental choice.
Send your kids to any private school you want.
Just don’t steal tax dollars from public education and the children who need help the most to support private schools.
Claims that the voucher scam would save taxpayer money are just what they seem. More voucher cr@p.
Everyone knows that vouchers are a scam. They would do nothing for those who need help the most except leave them further behind.
Claims that vouchers would help all children are just part of the scam. The voucher pimps know that’s not true.
Tell your elected officials to fix the issues with public education.
Like the lack of adequate funding, facilities and equipment in so many schools.
Like the low pay and benefits for teachers.
Like the poverty and latent racism that impacts so many kids.
Like the lack of parental involvement in the education of so many students who need help.
By Jeff March 1, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Hi “BIN News Editorial Staff” … I’m really trying to figure out why the opposition to this bill, so I keep writing, so bear with me. Isn’t nearly $12,000 per public school student spending a lot of money? I got a law degree and MBA from USC for $24,500 (granted 20 years ago, but you get the point). Serious question, but how much is enough? The public school budget is $9 billion … this bill only cost $36 million total — and $15 million of that is scholarships for low-income kids (free or reduced school lunch) and $10 million is scholarships for special needs kids – both seem like GREAT causes. So all this is about the remaining $11 million worth of tax deductions for 59,000 kids that go to private/home school? I just don’t get the issue here. Thanks for your comments / reply.
By Over-the-top March 5, 2012 at 4:06 pm
The school affiliated unions are opposed to School Choice because they have a good thing going for teachers and a great thing for administrators. $11,000 per student is absurd unless you think it appropriate to pay school superintendents more than a quarter of million dollars a year when benefits are included.
Teachers,bless their hearts some of them are great, but the fact remains a teaching job is a part-time job and teachers are compensated at rates that far exceed private sector jobs. Administrators receive even more than teachers! Many if not most of the administrator jobs are unnecessary.
We have sports departments in our schools that are staffed at levels greater than most colleges a generation ago. We have athletic directors and coaches and PT instructors all earning salaries and benefits far beyond reason.
School choice will invite entrepreneurs to come into education and bring with them ideas and concepts of efficiency that will afford our young people a quality education at ever decreasing cost. School choice will bring about pay-for-performance. If good teachers want to earn superior pay let them go into schools that open year-around. Teachers desiring to work at a part-time job will be able to teach in schools set up for less than full-year programs.
Currently, government operated schools enjoy a near-monopoly on education. The NEA and the school board association are powerful unions and they want to keep the monopoly in place – these unions are going to fight school choice with all the power and resources they can muster. Should they succeed, our young people and the taxpayers will be the losers.