SC

Gut Check Time, Black Lawmakers

On a key education vote this week, black lawmakers in the South Carolina House of Representatives have a choice to make … They can either support expanded parental choice options proven to benefit their low-income constituencies … or they can continue kowtowing to a failed government-run education system that keeps…

On a key education vote this week, black lawmakers in the South Carolina House of Representatives have a choice to make …

They can either support expanded parental choice options proven to benefit their low-income constituencies … or they can continue kowtowing to a failed government-run education system that keeps generations of poor, mostly minority children enslaved to failure each and every year.

The choice couldn’t be more stark … yet for dozens of black House members (whose children are disproportionately trapped in failing government-run schools) the answer has always been to kowtow – to side with local bureaucrats who draw six figure salaries and generous travel and expense accounts while hoarding hundreds of millions of “surplus” tax revenue on top of the billions of dollars in new money they receive every year.

Oh … and then these black “leaders” have the audacity to say they are fighting “for the children.”

Amazing …

This year’s parental choice proposals obviously aren’t the strongest ones we’ve seen, but they do – at long last – open the door to real market-based education reform in South Carolina. And members of the S.C. House are working to strengthen the amendments that cleared the State Senate last month, so here’s hoping the version of choice that winds up on the governor’s desk is made even stronger.

One thing is clear though: There is absolutely no excuse for any black lawmaker to continue rejecting these modest, targeted proposals any longer.

Why not? Because without putting too fine a point on it, the people they are hurting are the ones they claim to be fighting for …

***

Pic: Travis Bell Photography

Related posts

SC

Hampton County Financial Mismanagement Prompts Investigations, Allegations

Callie Lyons
SC

South Carolina Beach Water Monitoring Set To Begin …

FITSNews
SC

Former TV Anchor, ‘Friends Of The Hunley’ Leader Popped For DUI

Will Folks

138 comments

Howie Richs Neighbor June 5, 2013 at 11:06 am

I see Howies “donation” to Fits was received in yesterdays mail.

Reply
CNSYD June 5, 2013 at 11:16 am

The month is young. There will be more articles. Also I believe Sic Willie is behind on his worship of carpetbagger Davis. Lover’s spat?

Reply
Howie Richs Neighbor June 5, 2013 at 11:06 am

I see Howies “donation” to Fits was received in yesterdays mail.

Reply
CNSYD June 5, 2013 at 11:16 am

The month is young. There will be more articles. Also I believe Sic Willie is behind on his worship of carpetbagger Davis. Lover’s spat?

Reply
nitrat June 5, 2013 at 11:08 am

crony capitalism = public money to private businesses/schools to produce new campaign contributors and/or buy votes

Reply
nitrat June 5, 2013 at 11:08 am

crony capitalism = public money to private businesses/schools to produce new campaign contributors and/or buy votes

Reply
Vanguard16 June 5, 2013 at 11:33 am

Really?? You think anyone is going to get a ‘choice’!! That’s laughable!! There’s only so many spots available at any given school. And as far as tax credits or vouchers, again, there are only so many spots available in private schools!!

Reply
EJB June 5, 2013 at 12:59 pm

This will only cause the tuition at the private schools to go up. That is part of the problem with the colleges; all the lottery scholarships put so much money out there that the schools are raising tuitions more than twice as fast as inflation.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 1:12 pm

EJB, you are exactly right. During the recession the Private Schools have had a difficult time increasing tuition. Giving the parents taxpayer money will allow them to increase tuition again without pricing their customers out of the market or into a less expensive private school.

Reply
Smirks June 5, 2013 at 3:15 pm

Student loans subsidizes public and private colleges on the backs of the students, tuition rates have been going up majorly in the past decade or two from it. SC is one state that has significantly dropped its funding to state colleges even while the colleges increase their budget. Private for-profit colleges like University of Phoenix maximize how much financial aid a person can take on to maximize their profits for their essentially worthless degrees. Other private colleges have increased their tuition as well since it enables them to expand and do more. Why not? It is free money, these colleges would be dumb not to take it.

But vouchers won’t raise tuition costs at private schools!

Reply
Jan June 6, 2013 at 10:58 am

I simply have to disagree. You are falling into the trap of believing vouchers are about getting more people to attend private school. That is not the case. The purpose is to get more money into the hands of people whose children are already in private schools. That way the schools can get more money without expanding the number of students .

The Colonel June 5, 2013 at 2:11 pm

You’re on crack, the lottery has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of tuition. Most kids get $5,000 or less from the lottery. The average Kid at USC gets $12,000 a year in financial aid. Tuition is just over $10,000.

UGA’s numbers are about the same but their lottery system pays 90-100% at state schools (SC’s is capped at $5,000-$7,500 depending upon majors at any SC school) Tuition is 9.800.

Alabama has no lottery, the average kid gets $11,000 in financial aid and the tuition cost is slightly lower than USC’s at $9,200.

NC Subsidizes their colleges at a much higher rate than SC and their tuition rates are much, much lower ($6,000 range)

Reply
EJB June 6, 2013 at 7:38 am

Thomas Sowell has written a number of articles on this (as have other economists). Below are two links. It isn’t hard to find detractors (to this or anything) but I’ve seen what has happened to South Carolina’s college tuitions before and after we passed the “Education Lottery” and I have seen enough to go along with Mr. Sowell. It doesn’t take imagination to see this happening with private schools, the good ones, just logic. My kids are done with school so do what you want but will you as boldly stand up and say “I was wrong” as boldly as you say “vouchers”, “tax credits” and your other platitudes that help no one? Actually I think you will say “Man, you got a mess to clean up”. I would just as soon start cleaning up now while it’s a smaller mess to clean up. I’ve read stories of school superintendents and principles that have taken very poorly performing schools and made them outstanding schools by hard work, discipline, responsibility and accountability, without drastically increasing their budgets, and I do believe there is a better way than removing money from the education budget.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2005063/posts

Mr. Sowell explains why free market principles don’t necessarily apply to colleges the same way they do with businesses.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2008/04/23/the_economics_of_college_part_iii/page/full

Reply
Thomas June 6, 2013 at 9:00 am

Thank you for sharing links for Mr Sowell. He is a good guy. Anyone who reads Mr Sowell is a good guy. You both are correct.

Jan June 6, 2013 at 11:13 am

ELB, you make good points, but you are making one huge mistake. You presume the people who support vouchers, tax credits, etc. actually care what happens to public education. That is just a façade. These are people who have abandoned public education and now they want to pull their money out as well.

There is no goal here of fixing public education or making it better.

Mike at the Beach June 6, 2013 at 12:27 am

So, let’s see where you took ECON-101…
Let’s say there are suddenly “new” dollars floating around that SC parents can spend in private schools (which, for the most part, are private businesses, or at least try to fund their operations like one). Your theory is that the manner in which these schools (who want the dollars) would compete in the market for those dollars would be to raise their prices.
I don’t know friend…I am thinking that private schools would do one of two things – expand their operations to grab some of those bucks, or reduce or freeze their prices to out-market other schools in the same geographic market. If I was running a private school I would do both. Your theory really only plays well in a monopolized market.
Just some food for thought. There are LOTS of other reasons that things would play out differently – white flight, local issues, differential tax bases (think Lexington versus Dillon), etc. Lots of moving parts in this issue…

Reply
Anonymous June 6, 2013 at 10:32 am

You demonstrate why people who haven’t studied economics (successfully) should make comments about economics. Schools will not lower prices if more money is flowing into the system.

Reply
Mike at the Beach June 7, 2013 at 1:55 am

Not so fast there, smarty pants! Despite your pejorative tone, I will politely attempt to explain to you where I am coming from (there is actually some debate among economists in this regard these days, especially behavioral economists and those studying bureaucracies). Now I’ll admit, my grad school days back at UVA were a bit back in the day, but not SO far back as to be considered “unsuccessful…” I even remember a good bit of the course I took in the economics of higher ed. Higher ed operates on a different business model, but hold on a minute and you’ll see where I’m going (there are, obviously, similarities between higher ed and the secondary education world).

Now, to be fair, there are some economists who (like you) appear to define the American higher ed scene as a traditionally elastic economic system. Daniel Lin (American U) would probably be the best example. He’s written a good bit on why the college tuition problem since the early 80’s is purely a classic supply-demand equation. Their position is that as
demand for college increases, universities can respond by increasing either enrollment or tuition costs. Since many colleges claim severe limitations on their ability to expand, they have (for the most part) responded to higher demand by
increasing tuition. It is generally true that if you artificially inflate demand for something and don’t let supply adjust, prices will go up.

Here’s where things get interesting, though. When econ-types started really digging into certain aspects of the US college scene, such as price elasticity of demand (percentage
change in quantity demanded caused by a percent change in price), they found some fairly remarkable facts. As it turns out, the non-profit universities get “paid” (in large part) in prestige, which they obtain through an objective self-interest in avoiding the growth that would restore the elasticity to the supply curve. The for-profit groups, on the other hand, tended to alter their business models to grab as much of the subsidy money as possible with little or no effort to improve their product (the education piece). In other words, there was much more going on than simple supply and demand. Top-quartile schools like being exclusive (and expensive), and many of the rest just couldn’t resist all of that free money.

The simple elastic market model, however, really works best when the goal is the maximization of revenue / profit. In the ed world, this is very often NOT the primary goal (or it shouldn’t be, anyway). Econs who agree with Lin say that increased demand (stemming from massive financial aid) leave only two options: raise tuition or increase enrollment. There is, however, also a third option- raise admissions standards and give up some of the extra potential profit. Universities have gone the tuition route due to the lack of downward pressure within the higher education oligopoly on their own spending. I’m already way too long, or I’d further bore you on some studies of the phenomenal growth in administrative spending by American colleges that has accompanied the post-1980 tuition surge.

So how does this relate to the private secondary school world? The key is the difference between the business models, and the percentage share of subsidy introduced to the market. The student loan and federal aid share in the higher ed world is huge; the tax credit share in the SC private school world would be very small. Think food stamps – have the massive increases in food stamp spending over the past four years dramatically affected food prices? They have not, because they are a relatively small part of spending in that sector (as tax credits would be in the private school sphere). Further, SC private
schools are in no way an oligopoly – startup costs for a small private school
are not prohibitive market entry barriers such as those for colleges (this is
the key difference, by the way).

This is not to say that higher ed couldn’t change if they wanted to start scaling back on lavish salaries for the greatly expanded staffs and expensive building projects. Look at the myriad studies which examined the impact of the post-WWII GI Bill. In the 40’s, American higher ed was awash in subsidies that DWARF those we have today, yet they chose the expansion route as opposed to tuition increases. More butts in seats still equaled more dollars (some schools even…wait
for it….reduced tuition).

The private secondary school world is much different than the higher ed world (where your theory is more accurate). The subsidies would be dramatically smaller as a percentage of revenue, and the business models usually focus on some aspect other than maximization of profit. There is still the
biggest difference, too – the aforementioned lack of barriers to entry into the
market for new operations. I also think you misstate my point when you say that “Schools will not lower prices if more money is flowing into the system.” You may be right (but I don’t think so). I said simply that I thought that most would EITHER expand their operations (as did colleges after WWII), reduce their tuition, or freeze / maintain their current tuition. Despite the fact that you seem to think I failed all of my econ courses (or slept through them at some school like Clemson – I KEED!) dozens of studies (and history) point to the very real possibility that I just may be right. It’s just hard to get into it in this format.

Maybe your comment demonstrates why people who prematurely and personally judge others anonymously on blogs might should simply ask politely first. Peace! ;-)

Vanguard16 June 5, 2013 at 11:33 am

Really?? You think anyone is going to get a ‘choice’!! That’s laughable!! There’s only so many spots available at any given school. And as far as tax credits or vouchers, again, there are only so many spots available in private schools!!

Reply
EJB June 5, 2013 at 12:59 pm

This will only cause the tuition at the private schools to go up. That is part of the problem with the colleges; all the lottery scholarships put so much money out there that the schools are raising tuitions more than twice as fast as inflation.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 1:12 pm

EJB, you are exactly right. During the recession the Private Schools have had a difficult time increasing tuition. Giving the parents taxpayer money will allow them to increase tuition again without pricing their customers out of the market or into a less expensive private school.

Reply
Smirks June 5, 2013 at 3:15 pm

Student loans subsidizes public and private colleges on the backs of the students, tuition rates have been going up majorly in the past decade or two from it. SC is one state that has significantly dropped its funding to state colleges even while the colleges increase their budget. Private for-profit colleges like University of Phoenix maximize how much financial aid a person can take on to maximize their profits for their essentially worthless degrees. Other private colleges have increased their tuition as well since it enables them to expand and do more. Why not? It is free money, these colleges would be dumb not to take it.

But vouchers won’t raise tuition costs at private schools!

Reply
Jan June 6, 2013 at 10:58 am

I simply have to disagree. You are falling into the trap of believing vouchers are about getting more people to attend private school. That is not the case. The purpose is to get more money into the hands of people whose children are already in private schools. That way the schools can get more money without expanding the number of students .

The Colonel (R) June 5, 2013 at 2:11 pm

You’re on crack, the lottery has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of tuition. Most kids get $5,000 or less from the lottery. The average Kid at USC gets $12,000 a year in financial aid. Tuition is just over $10,000.

UGA’s numbers are about the same but their lottery system pays 90-100% at state schools (SC’s is capped at $5,000-$7,500 depending upon majors at any SC school) Tuition is 9.800.

Alabama has no lottery, the average kid gets $11,000 in financial aid and the tuition cost is slightly lower than USC’s at $9,200.

NC Subsidizes their colleges at a much higher rate than SC and their tuition rates are much, much lower ($6,000 range)

Reply
EJB June 6, 2013 at 7:38 am

Thomas Sowell has written a number of articles on this (as have other economists). Below are two links. It isn’t hard to find detractors (to this or anything) but I’ve seen what has happened to South Carolina’s college tuitions before and after we passed the “Education Lottery” and I have seen enough to go along with Mr. Sowell. It doesn’t take imagination to see this happening with private schools, the good ones, just logic. My kids are done with school so do what you want but will you as boldly stand up and say “I was wrong” as boldly as you say “vouchers”, “tax credits” and your other platitudes that help no one? Actually I think you will say “Man, you got a mess to clean up”. I would just as soon start cleaning up now while it’s a smaller mess to clean up. I’ve read stories of school superintendents and principles that have taken very poorly performing schools and made them outstanding schools by hard work, discipline, responsibility and accountability, without drastically increasing their budgets, and I do believe there is a better way than removing money from the education budget.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2005063/posts

Mr. Sowell explains why free market principles don’t necessarily apply to colleges the same way they do with businesses.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2008/04/23/the_economics_of_college_part_iii/page/full

Reply
Thomas June 6, 2013 at 9:00 am

Thank you for sharing links for Mr Sowell. He is a good guy. Anyone who reads Mr Sowell is a good guy. You both are correct.

Jan June 6, 2013 at 11:13 am

ELB, you make good points, but you are making one huge mistake. You presume the people who support vouchers, tax credits, etc. actually care what happens to public education. That is just a façade. These are people who have abandoned public education and now they want to pull their money out as well.

There is no goal here of fixing public education or making it better.

Mike at the Beach June 6, 2013 at 12:27 am

So, let’s see where you took ECON-101…
Let’s say there are suddenly “new” dollars floating around that SC parents can spend in private schools (which, for the most part, are private businesses, or at least try to fund their operations like one). Your theory is that the manner in which these schools (who want the dollars) would compete in the market for those dollars would be to raise their prices.
I don’t know friend…I am thinking that private schools would do one of two things – expand their operations to grab some of those bucks, or reduce or freeze their prices to out-market other schools in the same geographic market. If I was running a private school I would do both. Your theory really only plays well in a monopolized market.
Just some food for thought. There are LOTS of other reasons that things would play out differently – white flight, local issues, differential tax bases (think Lexington versus Dillon), etc. Lots of moving parts in this issue…

Reply
Anonymous June 6, 2013 at 10:32 am

You demonstrate why people who haven’t studied economics (successfully) should make comments about economics. Schools will not lower prices if more money is flowing into the system.

Reply
Mike at the Beach June 7, 2013 at 1:55 am

Not so fast there, smarty pants! Despite your pejorative tone, I will politely attempt to explain to you where I am coming from (there is actually some debate among economists in this regard these days, especially behavioral economists and those studying bureaucracies). Now I’ll admit, my grad school days back at UVA were a bit back in the day, but not SO far back as to be considered “unsuccessful…” I even remember a good bit of the course I took in the economics of higher ed. Higher ed operates on a different business model, but hold on a minute and you’ll see where I’m going (there are, obviously, similarities between higher ed and the secondary education world).

Now, to be fair, there are some economists who (like you) appear to define the American higher ed scene as a traditionally elastic economic system. Daniel Lin (American U) would probably be the best example. He’s written a good bit on why the college tuition problem since the early 80’s is purely a classic supply-demand equation. Their position is that as
demand for college increases, universities can respond by increasing either enrollment or tuition costs. Since many colleges claim severe limitations on their ability to expand, they have (for the most part) responded to higher demand by
increasing tuition. It is generally true that if you artificially inflate demand for something and don’t let supply adjust, prices will go up.

Here’s where things get interesting, though. When econ-types started really digging into certain aspects of the US college scene, such as price elasticity of demand (percentage
change in quantity demanded caused by a percent change in price), they found some fairly remarkable facts. As it turns out, the non-profit universities get “paid” (in large part) in prestige, which they obtain through an objective self-interest in avoiding the growth that would restore the elasticity to the supply curve. The for-profit groups, on the other hand, tended to alter their business models to grab as much of the subsidy money as possible with little or no effort to improve their product (the education piece). In other words, there was much more going on than simple supply and demand. Top-quartile schools like being exclusive (and expensive), and many of the rest just couldn’t resist all of that free money.

The simple elastic market model, however, really works best when the goal is the maximization of revenue / profit. In the ed world, this is very often NOT the primary goal (or it shouldn’t be, anyway). Econs who agree with Lin say that increased demand (stemming from massive financial aid) leave only two options: raise tuition or increase enrollment. There is, however, also a third option- raise admissions standards and give up some of the extra potential profit. Universities have gone the tuition route due to the lack of downward pressure within the higher education oligopoly on their own spending. I’m already way too long, or I’d further bore you on some studies of the phenomenal growth in administrative spending by American colleges that has accompanied the post-1980 tuition surge.

So how does this relate to the private secondary school world? The key is the difference between the business models, and the percentage share of subsidy introduced to the market. The student loan and federal aid share in the higher ed world is huge; the tax credit share in the SC private school world would be very small. Think food stamps – have the massive increases in food stamp spending over the past four years dramatically affected food prices? They have not, because they are a relatively small part of spending in that sector (as tax credits would be in the private school sphere). Further, SC private
schools are in no way an oligopoly – startup costs for a small private school
are not prohibitive market entry barriers such as those for colleges (this is
the key difference, by the way).

This is not to say that higher ed couldn’t change if they wanted to start scaling back on lavish salaries for the greatly expanded staffs and expensive building projects. Look at the myriad studies which examined the impact of the post-WWII GI Bill. In the 40’s, American higher ed was awash in subsidies that DWARF those we have today, yet they chose the expansion route as opposed to tuition increases. More butts in seats still equaled more dollars (some schools even…wait
for it….reduced tuition).

The private secondary school world is much different than the higher ed world (where your theory is more accurate). The subsidies would be dramatically smaller as a percentage of revenue, and the business models usually focus on some aspect other than maximization of profit. There is still the
biggest difference, too – the aforementioned lack of barriers to entry into the
market for new operations. I also think you misstate my point when you say that “Schools will not lower prices if more money is flowing into the system.” You may be right (but I don’t think so). I said simply that I thought that most would EITHER expand their operations (as did colleges after WWII), reduce their tuition, or freeze / maintain their current tuition. Despite the fact that you seem to think I failed all of my econ courses (or slept through them at some school like Clemson – I KEED!) dozens of studies (and history) point to the very real possibility that I just may be right. It’s just hard to get into it in this format.

Maybe your comment demonstrates why people who prematurely and personally judge others anonymously on blogs might should simply ask politely first. Peace! ;-)

Mr. Brown V. Board June 5, 2013 at 11:43 am

I am sure those private schools are just waiting on this to pass so these poor, “mostly minority” children can come to their schools. Isn’t that the class that most private schools in South Carolina were created to educate?

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 12:07 pm

A significant percentage of the Private Schools in SC are “white flight” schools. I am sure that black lawmakers are just itching to give them money. In fact these schools are the ones most likely to benefit from any school choice legislation, and they are certainly not interested in minority students.
Then there are the “elite” private schools, Porter Gaud, Hampton, Christ Church, etc . Not that I have anything against them. One of my children went to a private boarding school in Virginia. But, the truth is they are not looking for new students, and they are certainly not interested in an influx of poor students, regardless of race.
The rest are religious schools. Aren’t they supposed to be supported by the churches? Why should the taxpayer subsidize religious education.

Reply
scsince60 June 5, 2013 at 12:14 pm

That’s not exactly the case. Heathwood has had black students since the 70’s and Hammond has a lot of black kids in all grades. Maybe even more black parents would be interested if they could get a tax break.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 12:30 pm

I never said Heathwood or Hammond were white flight schools. The elite schools will take anyone with the right pedigree, significant money, or the right connections. What I said was they are not looking for an influx of poor students, and they aren’t. The pending legislation would not enhance the ability for poor children in failing schools to attend Heathwood or Hammond or any of the other similar schools. It would benefit people already attending those schools and take resources away from the schools poor students have available to them.

Reply
Interested Party June 5, 2013 at 12:26 pm

Maybe some parents of black kids would like to have the same “choice” you did in sending your kid to a private school. Actually, I’m pretty sure they would. If you don’t have money, you don’t have choice.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 12:37 pm

When you have legislation that is really designed to benefit poor children in failing public schools, I would be willing to take a look. Nothing that has been offered has that in mind. The goal has always been to get money into the hands of people whose children are already attending private school.
Here is a suggestion, come up with legislation that provides state money to fund scholarships for needy students currently enrolled in failing public schools that allows them to attend the private school of their choosing until their available public school is no longer failing. Then make it mandatory for private schools to take scholarship students. See how much support there is for that. I will support it.

Reply
Mr. Brown V. Board June 5, 2013 at 11:43 am

I am sure those private schools are just waiting on this to pass so these poor, “mostly minority” children can come to their schools. Isn’t that the class that most private schools in South Carolina were created to educate?

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 12:07 pm

A significant percentage of the Private Schools in SC are “white flight” schools. I am sure that black lawmakers are just itching to give them money. In fact these schools are the ones most likely to benefit from any school choice legislation, and they are certainly not interested in minority students.
Then there are the “elite” private schools, Porter Gaud, Hampton, Christ Church, etc . Not that I have anything against them. One of my children went to a private boarding school in Virginia. But, the truth is they are not looking for new students, and they are certainly not interested in an influx of poor students, regardless of race.
The rest are religious schools. Aren’t they supposed to be supported by the churches? Why should the taxpayer subsidize religious education.

Reply
scsince60 June 5, 2013 at 12:14 pm

That’s not exactly the case. Heathwood has had black students since the 70’s and Hammond has a lot of black kids in all grades. Maybe even more black parents would be interested if they could get a tax break.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 12:30 pm

I never said Heathwood or Hammond were white flight schools. The elite schools will take anyone with the right pedigree, significant money, or the right connections. What I said was they are not looking for an influx of poor students, and they aren’t. The pending legislation would not enhance the ability for poor children in failing schools to attend Heathwood or Hammond or any of the other similar schools. It would benefit people already attending those schools and take resources away from the schools poor students have available to them.

Reply
Interested Party June 5, 2013 at 12:26 pm

Maybe some parents of black kids would like to have the same “choice” you did in sending your kid to a private school. Actually, I’m pretty sure they would. If you don’t have money, you don’t have choice.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 12:37 pm

When you have legislation that is really designed to benefit poor children in failing public schools, I would be willing to take a look. Nothing that has been offered has that in mind. The goal has always been to get money into the hands of people whose children are already attending private school.
Here is a suggestion, come up with legislation that provides state money to fund scholarships for needy students currently enrolled in failing public schools that allows them to attend the private school of their choosing until their available public school is no longer failing. Then make it mandatory for private schools to take scholarship students. See how much support there is for that. I will support it.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 11:44 am

Parents with kids in private school have already chosen. So explain how giving them money from the taxpayers expands their choice. There is noting in the current bill that has any material value to anyone else. Just another run at the taxpayer’s pocket book.

Reply
Interested Party June 5, 2013 at 3:07 pm

Yeah.. I believe the point here is that this would allow poor kids who are in public schools the opportunity to go to private schools. That’s expanding choice.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 5:39 pm

That’s not what this legislation does and you know it. As I said earlier, when there is legislation which is targeted at helping kids who are attending failing public schools I could support it. No such legislation has been proposed.

Here is legislation that will do that. A scholarship for children whose parents have income below a set level and who are currently attending failing public schools. The scholarship should cover the cost of tuition at a private school until such time as their available public school is not failing. The law would also require private schools to admit scholarship students.
You will get no support for this legislation from the private school or “school choice”, crowd even though it accomplishes exactly what they say they are trying to accomplish. Why, because that is not what they are trying to accomplish. They want money for children who are already in private school. They don’t care about public school students.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 11:44 am

Parents with kids in private school have already chosen. So explain how giving them money from the taxpayers expands their choice. There is noting in the current bill that has any material value to anyone else. Just another run at the taxpayer’s pocket book.

Reply
Interested Party June 5, 2013 at 3:07 pm

Yeah.. I believe the point here is that this would allow poor kids who are in public schools the opportunity to go to private schools. That’s expanding choice.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 5:39 pm

That’s not what this legislation does and you know it. As I said earlier, when there is legislation which is targeted at helping kids who are attending failing public schools I could support it. No such legislation has been proposed.

Here is legislation that will do that. A scholarship for children whose parents have income below a set level and who are currently attending failing public schools. The scholarship should cover the cost of tuition at a private school until such time as their available public school is not failing. The law would also require private schools to admit scholarship students.
You will get no support for this legislation from the private school or “school choice”, crowd even though it accomplishes exactly what they say they are trying to accomplish. Why, because that is not what they are trying to accomplish. They want money for children who are already in private school. They don’t care about public school students.

Reply
jimlewisowb June 5, 2013 at 12:04 pm

Spit or swallow ?

They’ll swallow

Reply
jimlewisowb June 5, 2013 at 12:04 pm

Spit or swallow ?

They’ll swallow

Reply
jjevans June 5, 2013 at 12:06 pm

Fuck the parents that won’t take personal responsibility to ensure their children are educated properly – at school and in the home. The solution is clearly not government. The Government fucks up everything it touches. And last but not least, Fuck the politicians that don’t give a true shit about anything but their own egos and lining their fucking pockets.

Reply
Smirks June 5, 2013 at 3:04 pm

Further, the parents are liable for their kids being prepared for school regardless of whether it is public, private, or whatever. If your kid starts 5K and doesn’t know basic crap that the parent should be putting in their kid’s head, that automatically puts them at a disadvantage and either they get left behind or they slow the rest of the class down. If a kid goes through elementary and middle school and doesn’t get the help they need at home, again, either they get left behind or they slow the rest of the class down.

More often than not, the class doesn’t slow down, and more often than not, the parents that don’t help their kids or instill that value of doing your best into them, their kids aren’t going to stay after class/school to ask questions or get help. Public schooling has its issues, but what is really killing us is parents not doing their damn job. When the teacher has to do it for them and can’t, those are the very same parents that come in and blast the teacher for “failing their kid” or “not doing their job right” or some other baloney.

Nothing dooms a child struggling with their education more than a parent who can’t be bothered to help them.

Reply
Mike at the Beach June 6, 2013 at 12:18 am

Amen.

Reply
Jim June 5, 2013 at 3:38 pm

Black parents no better than to say to much or something at all. It screws up the black agender. That is when Uncle Tom steps in. Money is not answer it is blacks get off the power platform and work together with all not just their people. Blacks need to get out of this Democrat hold and start negociating with all that is involved before commiting. Everything is good when you get best deal.

Reply
I See You Spying June 5, 2013 at 4:49 pm

Right on!!

Reply
jjevans June 5, 2013 at 12:06 pm

Fuck the parents that won’t take personal responsibility to ensure their children are educated properly – at school and in the home. The solution is clearly not government. The Government fucks up everything it touches. And last but not least, Fuck the politicians that don’t give a true shit about anything but their own egos and lining their fucking pockets.

Reply
Smirks June 5, 2013 at 3:04 pm

Further, the parents are liable for their kids being prepared for school regardless of whether it is public, private, or whatever. If your kid starts 5K and doesn’t know basic crap that the parent should be putting in their kid’s head, that automatically puts them at a disadvantage and either they get left behind or they slow the rest of the class down. If a kid goes through elementary and middle school and doesn’t get the help they need at home, again, either they get left behind or they slow the rest of the class down.

More often than not, the class doesn’t slow down, and more often than not, the parents that don’t help their kids or instill that value of doing your best into them, their kids aren’t going to stay after class/school to ask questions or get help. Public schooling has its issues, but what is really killing us is parents not doing their damn job. When the teacher has to do it for them and can’t, those are the very same parents that come in and blast the teacher for “failing their kid” or “not doing their job right” or some other baloney.

Nothing dooms a child struggling with their education more than a parent who can’t be bothered to help them.

Reply
Mike at the Beach June 6, 2013 at 12:18 am

Amen.

Reply
OK June 5, 2013 at 3:38 pm

Black parents no better than to say to much or something at all. It screws up the black agender. That is when Uncle Tom steps in. Money is not answer it is blacks get off the power platform and work together with all not just their people. Blacks need to get out of this Democrat hold and start negociating with all that is involved before commiting. Everything is good when you get best deal.

Reply
I See You Spying June 5, 2013 at 4:49 pm

Right on!!

Reply
Marie Harrison June 5, 2013 at 12:31 pm

Lawmakers, both black and white, care about themselves, period!

Reply
Marie Harrison June 5, 2013 at 12:31 pm

Lawmakers, both black and white, care about themselves, period!

Reply
lowcorider June 5, 2013 at 12:48 pm

How how how Howie time.

Reply
Lowcorider June 5, 2013 at 12:48 pm

How how how Howie time.

Reply
EJB June 5, 2013 at 12:55 pm

First, there are roughly 70,000 kids in private school, the day after the governor signs any such bill you can take the amount of the “voucher”, “credit” whatever and multiply it times 70,000 and that is what it will cost before even one, single child is affected (for the good or bad).

Second, US Department of Education has a book, State Regulations of Private Schools, a compilation of various regulations of the states. South Carolina has four pages, most of which are single sentence references of various things that would be regulated, such as;

Testing
There is not state policy at this time.

Textbooks
There is not state policy at this time.

If private schools are the answer, why? Seriously, why? One reason has to be fewer onerous regulations. Look at the regulations for public schools. I tried downloading them from the state’s web site and there are hundred and hundreds of pages of regulations. I have known teachers that quit public schools and take jobs at private schools for less pay, why? The solution isn’t to remove money from government schools, putting them in a position where they claim there isn’t enough money so they raise taxes, again, “for the children”. Time to roll up the sleeves and work on the government schools, there is no quick fix, no silver bullet, just hard work. Anything else will make matters worse and harder to fix when we do finally get around to doing this the right way.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 1:00 pm

Excellent points!!

Reply
Soft Sigh from Hell June 5, 2013 at 7:18 pm

“Time to roll up the sleeves and work on the government schools, there is no quick fix, no silver bullet, just hard work. Anything else will make matters worse and harder to fix when we do finally get around to doing this the right way.”

Hear! Hear!

Reply
EJB June 5, 2013 at 12:55 pm

First, there are roughly 70,000 kids in private school, the day after the governor signs any such bill you can take the amount of the “voucher”, “credit” whatever and multiply it times 70,000 and that is what it will cost before even one, single child is affected (for the good or bad).

Second, US Department of Education has a book, State Regulations of Private Schools, a compilation of various regulations of the states. South Carolina has four pages, most of which are single sentence references of various things that would be regulated, such as;

Testing
There is not state policy at this time.

Textbooks
There is not state policy at this time.

If private schools are the answer, why? Seriously, why? One reason has to be fewer onerous regulations. Look at the regulations for public schools. I tried downloading them from the state’s web site and there are hundred and hundreds of pages of regulations. I have known teachers that quit public schools and take jobs at private schools for less pay, why? The solution isn’t to remove money from government schools, putting them in a position where they claim there isn’t enough money so they raise taxes, again, “for the children”. Time to roll up the sleeves and work on the government schools, there is no quick fix, no silver bullet, just hard work. Anything else will make matters worse and harder to fix when we do finally get around to doing this the right way.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 1:00 pm

Excellent points!!

Reply
Soft Sigh from Hell June 5, 2013 at 7:18 pm

“Time to roll up the sleeves and work on the government schools, there is no quick fix, no silver bullet, just hard work. Anything else will make matters worse and harder to fix when we do finally get around to doing this the right way.”

Hear! Hear!

Reply
David Duke June 5, 2013 at 1:06 pm

Fits,

You need to go to some of these small towns in SC. I agree, there are many minorities below the poverty line. However, there are even more whites below the poverty line, especially in the former mill hill towns. So, black and white legislatures need to make the right educational decision for ALL children. Poor SC, everything is always about race.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 1:08 pm

Good point, and nothing in the pending legislation has anything to do with helping any of those people.

Reply
Laddy June 5, 2013 at 7:50 pm

Poor Allendale County. They had to teach English utilizing methods and procedures used to teach a second language.

Reply
Jim June 5, 2013 at 1:06 pm

These black law makers all have the same degree as Revrun Jessie Jackson and Revrun Al Sharpton. Doctor of power. Show me the “money” but yet they want to blame it own white man. Thank you government for kissing these asses

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 1:09 pm

I knew it would not be long before the racists weighed in. Big T you’re up.

Reply
David Duke June 5, 2013 at 1:06 pm

Fits,

You need to go to some of these small towns in SC. I agree, there are many minorities below the poverty line. However, there are even more whites below the poverty line, especially in the former mill hill towns. So, black and white legislatures need to make the right educational decision for ALL children. Poor SC, everything is always about race.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 1:08 pm

Good point, and nothing in the pending legislation has anything to do with helping any of those people.

Reply
Laddy June 5, 2013 at 7:50 pm

Poor Allendale County. They had to teach English utilizing methods and procedures used to teach a second language.

Reply
OK June 5, 2013 at 1:06 pm

These black law makers all have the same degree as Revrun Jessie Jackson and Revrun Al Sharpton. Doctor of power. Show me the “money” but yet they want to blame it own white man. Thank you government for kissing these asses

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 1:09 pm

I knew it would not be long before the racists weighed in. Big T you’re up.

Reply
Squishy123 June 5, 2013 at 1:14 pm

So when are the White Lawmakers making their statement? Bunch of racist hypocrits.

Reply
Squishy123 June 5, 2013 at 1:14 pm

So when are the White Lawmakers making their statement? Bunch of racist hypocrits.

Reply
jjevans June 5, 2013 at 2:12 pm

I’m a firm believer that parental involvement is the key – no solution the government comes up with will work unless they can infuse personal responsibility in people, which will never happen. Personally my child attends a public school and his school is doing well, along with my child. I am also involved in his education (holding him accountable for his work, attending school functions, etc) and the second his school turns to shit I will find another alternative for him.

Several years ago I spoke with a first grade teacher at a low-income area school and she told me that when her school had open house only ONE parent showed up from the entire first-grade. I went to my childs open house and had to park outside the school along the street because there were so many parents attending the parking lot was full.

I’m not an educator but my theory is that private schools do better because if a parent is writing a check each month to pay for their childs education they are probably pretty damn interested in how their child is doing. I know there are fucking problems in all areas of our system, but I put most of the blame on the parents. Unfortunately the students will suffer from their parents stupidity and laziness. And government can’t fix that (not that the bastards in government really care unless it benefits themselves).

Reply
Smirks June 5, 2013 at 3:22 pm

Several years ago I spoke with a first grade teacher at a low-income
area school and she told me that when her school had open house only ONE
parent showed up from the entire first-grade.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a few parents who couldn’t make it due to having to work multiple jobs or late hours to make ends meet, but I’m sure most simply don’t care, and that is truly sad.

Reply
nitrat June 5, 2013 at 9:41 pm

People don’t realize the severe transportation problems that many poor people have, either.

Reply
jjevans June 5, 2013 at 2:12 pm

I’m a firm believer that parental involvement is the key – no solution the government comes up with will work unless they can infuse personal responsibility in people, which will never happen. Personally my child attends a public school and his school is doing well, along with my child. I am also involved in his education (holding him accountable for his work, attending school functions, etc) and the second his school turns to shit I will find another alternative for him.

Several years ago I spoke with a first grade teacher at a low-income area school and she told me that when her school had open house only ONE parent showed up from the entire first-grade. I went to my childs open house and had to park outside the school along the street because there were so many parents attending the parking lot was full.

I’m not an educator but my theory is that private schools do better because if a parent is writing a check each month to pay for their childs education they are probably pretty damn interested in how their child is doing. I know there are fucking problems in all areas of our system, but I put most of the blame on the parents. Unfortunately the students will suffer from their parents stupidity and laziness. And government can’t fix that (not that the bastards in government really care unless it benefits themselves).

Reply
Smirks June 5, 2013 at 3:22 pm

Several years ago I spoke with a first grade teacher at a low-income
area school and she told me that when her school had open house only ONE
parent showed up from the entire first-grade.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a few parents who couldn’t make it due to having to work multiple jobs or late hours to make ends meet, but I’m sure most simply don’t care, and that is truly sad.

Reply
nitrat June 5, 2013 at 9:41 pm

People don’t realize the severe transportation problems that many poor people have, either.

Reply
Polyphemos June 5, 2013 at 2:15 pm

The hardest thing for the victim of abuse to do is walk away from the the abuser. In this case, the abused belong to the party which favors the abuse – so they are both victim and perp. Not that the RINOS are helping much, either.

Reply
Slartibartfast June 5, 2013 at 2:15 pm

The hardest thing for the victim of abuse to do is walk away from the the abuser. In this case, the abused belong to the party which favors the abuse – so they are both victim and perp. Not that the RINOS are helping much, either.

Reply
Fastmouth June 5, 2013 at 2:21 pm

I’ve said it before and I will say it again, I’m not for vouchers, government subsidies for private schools or anything of the sort. Our child goes to a public school and is doing fine. If parents want to send their children to a private school, that’s their call. However, I in no way want my tax dollars going to subsidize a private school.

Reply
Interested Party June 5, 2013 at 3:11 pm

Because all public schools are great and all parents are involved. That’s great! Problem solved!

p.s. Might want to take a trip down to Allendale some time and check out those schools.

Reply
vicupstate June 5, 2013 at 4:36 pm

Does Allendale even HAVE a private school?

Reply
Fastmouth June 5, 2013 at 4:39 pm

The good folks in Allendale need to fix their problems themselves. Maybe a change in leadership, I don’t really know. However, I still do not want my tax dollars going to subsidize a private school.

Reply
Shitbox June 6, 2013 at 4:15 pm

I don’t have any kids…why are my tax dollars higher than those who have them?

Big Daddy June 5, 2013 at 2:21 pm

I’ve said it before and I will say it again, I’m not for vouchers, government subsidies for private schools or anything of the sort. Our child goes to a public school and is doing fine. If parents want to send their children to a private school, that’s their call. However, I in no way want my tax dollars going to subsidize a private school.

Reply
Interested Party June 5, 2013 at 3:11 pm

Because all public schools are great and all parents are involved. That’s great! Problem solved!

p.s. Might want to take a trip down to Allendale some time and check out those schools.

Reply
vicupstate June 5, 2013 at 4:36 pm

Does Allendale even HAVE a private school?

Reply
Big Daddy June 5, 2013 at 4:39 pm

The good folks in Allendale need to fix their problems themselves. Maybe a change in leadership, I don’t really know. However, I still do not want my tax dollars going to subsidize a private school.

Reply
Shitbox June 6, 2013 at 4:15 pm

I don’t have any kids…why are my tax dollars higher than those who have them?

Tired and Retired June 5, 2013 at 2:56 pm

I agree with Fasmouth.

Reply
Tired and Retired June 5, 2013 at 2:56 pm

I agree with Fasmouth.

Reply
Facts Don't Lie June 5, 2013 at 3:07 pm

2012 School Report Cards: Dreher High School: $7556 per pupil spending down 7.9% over 2011, rated Excellent.

C.A. Johnson High School: $14,600 per pupil spending, up 5.9% over 2011. Rated: At Risk (three years in a row).

You could triple spending at C.A. Johnson with no change in the results.

Reply
The Colonel June 5, 2013 at 3:13 pm

You’d get a change but you wouldn’t like the direction.
Utah spends on average $7,000 per pupil and they wear us out in achievement. The school systems are roughly the same size, poverty rates are similar.

Reply
Jay Ellington June 5, 2013 at 3:30 pm

Sounds like the parents need to be re-educated.

Reply
Facts Don't Lie June 5, 2013 at 3:07 pm

2012 School Report Cards: Dreher High School: $7556 per pupil spending down 7.9% over 2011, rated Excellent.

C.A. Johnson High School: $14,600 per pupil spending, up 5.9% over 2011. Rated: At Risk (three years in a row).

You could triple spending at C.A. Johnson with no change in the results.

Reply
The Colonel (R) June 5, 2013 at 3:13 pm

You’d get a change but you wouldn’t like the direction.
Utah spends on average $7,000 per pupil and they wear us out in achievement. The school systems are roughly the same size, poverty rates are similar.

Reply
The Ghost of Fat Greg Dulli June 5, 2013 at 3:30 pm

Sounds like the parents need to be re-educated.

Reply
Louise June 5, 2013 at 3:26 pm

We cannot afford private schools. We are in Richland Dist 1. Our children are in advanced placement classes, but not in IB programs. We have had some ourstanding black teachers. But more than 10 times with 4 children in the past 14 years, we have had rediculously incompetent, unqualified black teachers (and one alcoholic white teacher). The principals blather about how qualified they are and how we have to give them a chance. EVERY single time, it has been a disaster. One principal at the end of this school year finally just said, “We have to keep them if we want to keep our jobs.” Some of us parents just quietly hired a tutor for several of the students in a particular language arts class.

Quit giving the Lillian McBrides of Richland County these charity, political jobs and demand we get qualified teachers regardless of race. That’s the only way to really help the children.

Reply
Smirks June 5, 2013 at 6:27 pm

It does look like Richland District 1 is suffering bigtime, just from what I’ve seen.

Reply
Louise June 5, 2013 at 3:26 pm

We cannot afford private schools. We are in Richland Dist 1. Our children are in advanced placement classes, but not in IB programs. We have had some ourstanding black teachers. But more than 10 times with 4 children in the past 14 years, we have had rediculously incompetent, unqualified black teachers (and one alcoholic white teacher). The principals blather about how qualified they are and how we have to give them a chance. EVERY single time, it has been a disaster. One principal at the end of this school year finally just said, “We have to keep them if we want to keep our jobs.” Some of us parents just quietly hired a tutor for several of the students in a particular language arts class.

Quit giving the Lillian McBrides of Richland County these charity, political jobs and demand we get qualified teachers regardless of race. That’s the only way to really help the children.

Reply
Smirks June 5, 2013 at 6:27 pm

It does look like Richland District 1 is suffering bigtime, just from what I’ve seen.

Reply
JasonTromm June 5, 2013 at 3:47 pm

I can tell you first hand that school choice makes a difference. My son attends AJ Whittenberg, a school of choice in Greenville County. He had difficulties at the regular elementary school to which he was assigned, so when we were given a choice we moved him to the new school. It’s made a huge difference!

The school is actually in a “low income” area of downtown Greenville, so the students assigned to the school get a huge benefit. Minority parents are fighting to get preferences for their children to attend a new middle school with a STEAM curriculum, because they want to have a choice.

Reply
vicupstate June 5, 2013 at 4:39 pm

… and Whittenburg is a public school.

Reply
Smirks June 5, 2013 at 6:20 pm

Well, he called it “a school of choice,” not a private school, but yes, still part of the public system.

Reply
vicupstate June 5, 2013 at 7:57 pm

I didn’t have time earlier to elaborate in my post, but I don’t know anyone that objects to choice among PUBLIC schools. There are lots of examples of that across the state already. Whittenburg isn’t the only alternative either, there are others in Greenville county.
The problem is with private schools the accountability and ‘compulsory’ acceptance are gone. The voucher won’t cover allthe cost either (and they can always raise it ) The rich will get richer (educatioanlly speaking) and the poor will get poorer.
The whole point is to reduce educational spending so Howie can pay even less taxes. If Howie really wanted to help the poor kids in Allendale and elsewhere, he should send a few of them to private school on his own dime.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 5:44 pm

This is not the school choice they are talking about. Their program would take resources away from schools like Whittenburg and give the funds to private schools that your child may not even be able to get into.

Reply
JasonTromm June 6, 2013 at 11:47 am

A lot of my friends assumed the school district was taking funds away from other elementary schools to fund AJ Whittenberg. That’s not the case.

That said, I would have no problem with giving $6,000 of the $8,000 spent on each public school pupil to private schools. I think that’s a fair formula.

Reply
JasonTromm June 5, 2013 at 3:47 pm

I can tell you first hand that school choice makes a difference. My son attends AJ Whittenberg, a school of choice in Greenville County. He had difficulties at the regular elementary school to which he was assigned, so when we were given a choice we moved him to the new school. It’s made a huge difference!

The school is actually in a “low income” area of downtown Greenville, so the students assigned to the school get a huge benefit. Minority parents are fighting to get preferences for their children to attend a new middle school with a STEAM curriculum, because they want to have a choice.

Reply
vicupstate June 5, 2013 at 4:39 pm

… and Whittenburg is a public school.

Reply
Smirks June 5, 2013 at 6:20 pm

Well, he called it “a school of choice,” not a private school, but yes, still part of the public system.

Reply
vicupstate June 5, 2013 at 7:57 pm

I didn’t have time earlier to elaborate in my post, but I don’t know anyone that objects to choice among PUBLIC schools. There are lots of examples of that across the state already. Whittenburg isn’t the only alternative either, there are others in Greenville county.
The problem is with private schools the accountability and ‘compulsory’ acceptance are gone. The voucher won’t cover allthe cost either (and they can always raise it ) The rich will get richer (educatioanlly speaking) and the poor will get poorer.
The whole point is to reduce educational spending so Howie can pay even less taxes. If Howie really wanted to help the poor kids in Allendale and elsewhere, he should send a few of them to private school on his own dime.

Reply
Jan June 5, 2013 at 5:44 pm

This is not the school choice they are talking about. Their program would take resources away from schools like Whittenburg and give the funds to private schools that your child may not even be able to get into.

Reply
JasonTromm June 6, 2013 at 11:47 am

A lot of my friends assumed the school district was taking funds away from other elementary schools to fund AJ Whittenberg. That’s not the case.

That said, I would have no problem with giving $6,000 of the $8,000 spent on each public school pupil to private schools. I think that’s a fair formula.

Reply
tomstickler June 5, 2013 at 4:07 pm

I don’t suppose anyone has any real data on how vouchers anywhere in the US have improved education for the constituents of black lawmakers? Anyone? Hmmmm?

Unlike most of you readers and commenters, I was the first Board President of a private school founded in 1971. The first Board election at the end of the first year was a battle between the faction that wanted to maintain a diversity of enrollment, and a faction that wanted to go in the direction of a school targeted to the elite in the community. Diversity won out.

Today, that school has a reputation for high scholastic achievement with the alumni providing the valedictorians for five local high schools in one year alone. One Rhodes Scholar began his education there. To my knowledge, no voucher has ever been used at that school.

The key is parent involvement, dedicated teachers and a curriculum that teaches children how to think and learn.

Reply
Mike at the Beach June 7, 2013 at 2:02 am

I don’t know about the voucher piece, but there’s some really good data on the effect of choice on long-term outcomes. Check out especially the stuff written by Douglas Staiger (econ prof at Dartmouth) and various academic colleagues:

http://aefpweb.org/sites/default/files/webform/DHKS_March2011.pdf

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dstaiger/Papers/WP/2008/HastingsKaneStaiger_Combined_200806.pdf

His research is interesting, and supports your position on parental involvement (even as it relates to the choice of a school within open-enrollment / choice districts).

Reply
tomstickler June 5, 2013 at 4:07 pm

I don’t suppose anyone has any real data on how vouchers anywhere in the US have improved education for the constituents of black lawmakers? Anyone? Hmmmm?

Unlike most of you readers and commenters, I was the first Board President of a private school founded in 1970. The first Board election at the end of the first year was a battle between the faction that wanted to maintain a diversity of enrollment, and a faction that wanted to go in the direction of a school targeted to the elite in the community. Diversity won out.

Today, that school has a reputation for high scholastic achievement with the alumni providing the valedictorians for five local high schools in one year alone. One Rhodes Scholar began his education there. To my knowledge, no voucher has ever been used at that school.

The key is parent involvement, dedicated teachers and a curriculum that teaches children how to think and learn.

Reply
Mike at the Beach June 7, 2013 at 2:02 am

I don’t know about the voucher piece, but there’s some really good data on the effect of choice on long-term outcomes. Check out especially the stuff written by Douglas Staiger (econ prof at Dartmouth) and various academic colleagues:

http://aefpweb.org/sites/default/files/webform/DHKS_March2011.pdf

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dstaiger/Papers/WP/2008/HastingsKaneStaiger_Combined_200806.pdf

His research is interesting, and supports your position on parental involvement (even as it relates to the choice of a school within open-enrollment / choice districts).

Reply
Jim June 5, 2013 at 4:27 pm

Nothing will happen until the black law makers want what is best for children in South Carolina. They are treating it as white and black. There are many whites that help them get elected. Wonder why there is still racism in United States.

Reply
OK June 5, 2013 at 4:27 pm

Nothing will happen until the black law makers want what is best for children in South Carolina. They are treating it as white and black. There are many whites that help them get elected. Wonder why there is still racism in United States.

Reply
Baker Maultsby June 5, 2013 at 5:29 pm

Or these black lawmakers could choose to support public schools, which are the ones serving the vast majority of black students….and the only schools that are open any and all kids.
It shows just how out of touch Will Folks and the hard-right folks are: They think black lawmakers should support legislation that guarantees money ONLY to the well-off and that would provide money for rich people who already have their kids in elite private schools that have no intention of taking needy, struggling students. Oh, and black lawmakers should be fine with this scheme taking money out their local public schools.
I think one reason private school choice has so far failed in SC is that people like Will Folks show just how truly out of touch and/or dishonest their claims really are. It isn’t hard to see how wacky it all really is.
To quote the songwriter Lonesome Bob: “It’d be sad if it wasn’t so funny/ it’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad….”

Reply
Baker Maultsby June 5, 2013 at 5:29 pm

Or these black lawmakers could choose to support public schools, which are the ones serving the vast majority of black students….and the only schools that are open any and all kids.
It shows just how out of touch Will Folks and the hard-right folks are: They think black lawmakers should support legislation that guarantees money ONLY to the well-off and that would provide money for rich people who already have their kids in elite private schools that have no intention of taking needy, struggling students. Oh, and black lawmakers should be fine with this scheme taking money out their local public schools.
I think one reason private school choice has so far failed in SC is that people like Will Folks show just how truly out of touch and/or dishonest their claims really are. It isn’t hard to see how wacky it all really is.
To quote the songwriter Lonesome Bob: “It’d be sad if it wasn’t so funny/ it’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad….”

Reply
Jim June 5, 2013 at 5:42 pm

its a long way from types of schools. I have 2 children in public school. I went to private school. You have to many chiefs or want to be. Power does weird things to people and as we do it makes it tough. We need to find that dream and get on same page. It is costing children and as is this problem with schoolis not going away until we get on that page.

Reply
OK June 5, 2013 at 5:42 pm

its a long way from types of schools. I have 2 children in public school. I went to private school. You have to many chiefs or want to be. Power does weird things to people and as we do it makes it tough. We need to find that dream and get on same page. It is costing children and as is this problem with schoolis not going away until we get on that page.

Reply
9" June 5, 2013 at 8:32 pm

Wearing your racism on your sleeve,aren’t you? What a shameless motherfucking redneck bastard.

Reply
9" June 5, 2013 at 8:32 pm

Wearing your racism on your sleeve,aren’t you? What a shameless motherfucking redneck bastard.

Reply
BIN News June 5, 2013 at 11:25 pm

Now we all know what we already knew.

Sic(k) willie is not only a voucher pimp, but he is also a racist voucher pimp.

But, who don’t know that?!

sic(k) willie, the racist, convicted CDV, porn-master. What a combo!

sic(k) willie and Howie the Voucher Clown are livid that their voucher scam has gone down the sewer, again (where it deserves to be).

Desperate to get something out of the bought and paid for House members. Only to be shot down again in flames by responsible Senate members.

Reply
BIN News June 5, 2013 at 11:25 pm

Now we all know what we already knew.

Sic(k) willie is not only a voucher pimp, but he is also a racist voucher pimp.

But, who don’t know that?!

sic(k) willie, the racist, convicted CDV, porn-master. What a combo!

sic(k) willie and Howie the Voucher Clown are livid that their voucher scam has gone down the sewer, again (where it deserves to be).

Desperate to get something out of the bought and paid for House members. Only to be shot down again in flames by responsible Senate members.

Reply

Leave a Comment