Critics Ignore Success of Choice

This op-ed, written by State Senator Kevin Bryant (R-Anderson), was published in The State newspaper on Monday, April 13, 2009:

 

The education establishment in South Carolina is running scared, because it’s running out of excuses.

Despite more money, more “accountability” and more government programs, South Carolina still has the nation’s worst graduation rate. Our SAT scores are still at the bottom of the barrel.

People are tired of failure, of rhetoric that ignores the facts, of irrational defenses of our state’s failed status quo and the steady barrage of misinformation accompanying those defenses.

And they are tired of choice in name only. They are ready for real change.

Several colleagues and I recently introduced the 2009 Educational Opportunity Act, which will provide tax credits for parents to send their children to any school of their choice. This is real school choice, and detractors are attacking it by saying it “won’t help poor kids” because there is “no guarantee” private companies and individuals will support scholarships for low-income, mostly minority students.

There are no guarantees in Pennsylvania either, but since its inception, the Educational Improvement Tax Credit Program has seen more than 3,200 companies pledge donations, and sent more than $350 million to some 600 scholarship-granting organizations. A key provision of the S.C. legislation is modeled after this successful program.

In the current school year, this investment in academic freedom has funded more than 50,000 scholarships to poor, at-risk students in Pennsylvania.

That’s 50,000 students getting a fresh start — and $300 million freed up within the public system to educate a smaller number of students.

In 2007, 62 corporations gave $14 million to student tuition organizations in Arizona, and 20,000 scholarships were made available for low-income students in Florida.

But the defenders of our state’s failed status quo aren’t just ignoring these success stories; they are impugning the motives of parental choice supporters, even playing a subtle but every bit as despicable race card.

Calling us “suburban Republicans,” they are implying that anyone supporting this legislation is only interested in making choice cheaper for those who can already afford it.

They are correct in presuming that this legislation would benefit “suburban Republicans.” It absolutely will. But it also would benefit “rural Democrats,” “urban independents,” “lakeside liberals,” “coastal conservatives” and all kinds of parents in between.

This bill will help all children.

State Sen. Robert Ford — a Charleston Democrat whose impassioned advocacy on this issue has stirred the African-American community in our state to action — is being attacked by the education establishment and prominent members of the NAACP.

I wonder if his detractors feel the same about the African-American mayors of Washington, Newark, N.J., New Orleans, Atlanta, and Jacksonville Fla. — all of whom support parental choice.

Critics don’t want to talk about these leaders, though, because they want you to believe that Sen. Ford is all alone among African-Americans in supporting a parent’s right to choose.

Our bill isn’t about black or white. Nor is it about rich or poor, rural or urban. It is about providing better academic options for each and every child in this state.

Supporters of the status quo want you to believe that this bill won’t help anyone, and yet in the same breath they contend that it will destroy public education.

The truth is this bill will free thousands of children stuck in failing schools — and will improve our public schools in the process by freeing up more money per student.

Mr. Bryant represents Anderson County in the S.C. Senate.

School Choice Vote

The Senate Education K-12 Subcommittee will vote on Wednesday, April 29th on the South Carolina Education Opportunity Act (S. 520).  The subcommittee meeting begins at 9:00 a.m. and will be held in Room 308 of the Gressette Building on the capitol complex in Columbia.

Please contact your senators and be sure to come out and stand up with parents from across the state in support of school choice.

Why Should Ty’Sheoma Have A Choice?

The following op-ed, which appeared in the Sunday, March 1, 2009 edition of The Washington Post, was written by Jeanne Allen who serves as the President of the Center for Education Reform:

 

What if Ty’Sheoma Bethea had a choice? Ty’Sheoma is the young lady who sat with first lady Michelle Obama when President Obama spoke to Congress Tuesday night. She had reached the president through a letter about her school, the ceiling that leaks, the walls that shake when trains go by, the poor education it provides. She warmed his heart and ours.

Ty’Sheoma’s world is not unlike the District’s before charter schools and scholarships, when enormous effort was made to improve schools, to no avail. It wasn’t until these choices were available that people could see how financing a broken system, without accountability, does nothing. Now, charter schools and the scholarship program are not only educating nearly 35 percent of D.C. students but also ushering in a new wave of public school reform that would never have been on the table had the arrival of choice not shown the way and shed light on the failings of the system and its protectors.

What if Ty’Sheoma had a charter school? Poverty abounds in her home town of Dillon, S.C. Its school board and citizens have the power to start charter schools. But school boards fight their creation, claiming they undermine public schools. Charters use education money with one goal, to educate. If they don’t succeed, they don’t stay open.

Dillon’s per-pupil expenditure — $8,700 — is higher than the national average. That funds more than 50 staff positions at her J.V. Martin Junior High School (including four custodians). That’s a student-to-staff ratio of 9 to 1, meaning there are more than twice as many adults serving students as at most schools in the country. What if Ty’Sheoma had an opportunity scholarship, which would send $7,500 to the private school of her family’s choosing? Those schools are not lush, but they are well-maintained, safe and successful in educating children. If Ty’Sheoma could vote with her feet, too, she’d find her allotted money spent where it should be, on ensuring student achievement. Her district might just make changes in response, lifting all schools.

But Ty’Sheoma doesn’t have choices. She’s the victim of a lawsuit filed by those who are adamant that money equals education. We know from years of equity battles that education doesn’t change when courts order states to spend more. Facilities may get a facelift and teachers may make more, but not because they are better; it’s because they are there. With choice, Ty’Sheoma’s family could evaluate a school, review the programs and the data on school performance. Ty’Sheoma could choose to attend a school that worked for her.

Ty’Sheoma Bethea doesn’t know that adults work in her schools regardless of how well they do their jobs, that there are no consequences for leaky roofs. She may not know that cities like this one offer choices that provide exactly what she wants and deserves. She’s been told that she is treated inequitably because the state doesn’t care about kids in Dillon. So she wrote the president, who brought her to Washington and told her story and asserted that the economic stimulus legislation helps her, absent any policy changes.

The Washington that has pledged to help her wants to abolish the D.C. program that affords choices to the poorest children. I wonder, if Ty’Sheoma had written the president about how choice benefited her, whether she would have been sitting with Michelle Obama.

If Ty’Sheoma had a choice, maybe we wouldn’t know her at all.

The writer is president of the Center for Education Reform.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/article/2009/02/28/AR2009022801663.html?sub=AR

 

 

 

We Need To Unite Behind Choice In Education

The following op-ed, co-authored by Representative Eric Bedingfield and Senator Robert Ford, appeared in the Sunday, March 1, 2009 edition of The Greenville News:

 

As elected officials go, a lot of people might be tempted to view us as the “odd couple.”

One of us is black, the other white. One is a Republican, the other a Democrat. One is from the Lowcountry, the other from the Upstate. We wear different clothes, listen to different music and watch different TV shows.

In a word, we are “unique” — which means we have something in common with the hundreds of thousands of children who attend our state’s public schools.

We have all heard the expression “that which unites us is stronger than that which divides us,” and that is more true today than ever before. In fact, that “unity” in pursuit of a common aim is why we are joining with dozens of our colleagues from across the state to lead the fight for long-overdue parental school choice in education.

How can we honestly call ourselves a culture that celebrates diversity and individual empowerment if thousands of children remain trapped in failing schools as part of a “one size fits all” system?

How can we possibly prepare future generations for an increasingly competitive world when nearly half of our students do not graduate on time?

And how can we say that we are confronting growing achievement gaps if we keep returning to the same old “solutions” that have failed the children of our state for decades?

These are challenges that transcend race, gender, socio-economic status and partisan affiliation.

And they are challenges that demand a new approach to the way South Carolina cares for its most treasured asset — the children who represent our collective hope, common dreams and shared future.

That new approach must begin with a shift in perspective.

We can no longer permit public policy in this state to be dictated by a “one size fits all” education system. We need to address the fact that all children are individuals and may need different ways and techniques to reach their full potential. The good Lord makes us all different, let us embrace that fact and allow parents the options to make sure their children have access to the educational system that best fits their individual needs.

In other words, our goal must be to advance academic achievement by any means necessary, both inside and outside of the current public system. That means empowering parents to find the right school or methods, whether they be public or private schools.

Currently, there are over 150 failing schools in South Carolina with almost 88,000 students trapped inside of them. Many of these failing schools are predominately black and their parents have lower than average income.

Also, we face declining public school SAT scores and a widening achievement20gap between white and black students that is evident in every measure.

These unacceptable results come after years of sustained funding increases. In fact, even after this year’s budget cuts we are still spending on average almost $12,000 per student when you factor federal, state and local resources.

More money has never been — and will never be — the only answer, although this is the constant refrain we keep hearing in Columbia from government bureaucrats and their lobbyists.

Our proposal is simple — we would take roughly half of the money our state currently spends per child and allow parents to choose a school setting that fits their child’s needs through a SC Opportunity Tax Credit. It would only be an average credit of $2,500, which pales in comparison to what the state spends to educate children today.

For our lower income families who may not have a tax liability, we are allowing scholarships be made available for families to send their children to the school of their choice. The scholarship program has been successfully implemented in Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio. It’s time we give opportunities to our lower income families to free them from decaying failing schools and give their children the opportunity they deserve.

Public, private, parochial — the choice would be up to the parents.

It’s that simple.

It would also create the same sort of competitive system we have in kindergarten and higher education in South Carolina, two areas that are consistently outperforming our K-12 system. We allow lower income families to choose a private kindergarten and we allow state and federal funds to aid families who send their children to private universities. Why can we not do the same for grades 1-12?

In endorsing this proposal, we fully expect to be criticized by the government-funded special interest groups who have successfully blocked parental choice up to this point. They don’t want change because they profit from the current system, and we can certainly see why they are so motivated on this issue.

But the time for change has come whether they like it or not.

South Carolina cannot afford to continue down its current path. We must unite behind real change — and real choice — or else we will continue to fail our future generations.

 

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20090301/OPINION/903010304/1008

 

 

Upcoming Regional Meetings

RICHLAND/LEXINGTON COUNTIES

Tuesday, March 31^st

Vista Community Room

Suggs & Kelly Law Center

500 Taylor Street, Columbia

6:00 p.m.

PICKENS COUNTY

Thursday, April 2^nd

Central Clemson Library

105 Commons Way, Central

6:30 p.m.

Spending Priorities

This editorial appeared in the Spartanburg Herald Journal on Tuesday, January 27, 2009:

 

South Carolina’s school districts, including those in Spartanburg County, have been hit hard by state budget cuts. School administrators have declared that the situation may force them to lay off teachers and end some programs.

 

But some districts are acting as if they have money to spend.

 

Spartanburg County School District 7 hired a new assistant superintendent, someone who is supposed to be in line to succeed the current superintendent. The district says it didn’t create a new position, but part of the job, at least the superintendent-designee portion, is new.

 

What’s really new is the salary. This assistant superintendent will be making $170,000 a year, more than any other school administrator in Spartanburg County – over $14,000 more than his boss, the current District 7 superintendent.

 

Spartanburg County School District 5 has a similar situation. It clearly wanted to bring back former Byrnes High School football coach Bobby Bentley. So it cobbled together some new and existing positions and brought back the coach in addition to keeping his replacement.

 

Now Spartanburg County taxpayers find the District 7 board is negotiating with Spartanburg Country Club and may contribute as much as $200,000 toward golf course improvements.

 

The Spartanburg High School golf team uses the course, but the contribution seems steep. To make matters worse, the district board met behind closed doors on the issue and failed to follow the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

 

In light of these developments, how do school administrators expect taxpayers to react when they talk about the schools’ dwindling funds and the need to increase class size and cut back on programs?

 

School budgets have been hit hard. Education is such a large part of state spending that it can’t be left untouched when state revenues fall as far as they’ve fallen this year.

 

The cuts have to have an effect, but taxpayers will be justified in wondering where the priorities are when large sums are used to hire new administrators and athletic directors and when board members meet in secret to plan a huge contribution to a private golf club.

 

All these plans may turn out to be beneficial. They may be in the best long-term interest of these districts. But in the current economic situation, they raise serious questions.

 

The best asset schools have in fighting funding cuts and lobbying for larger budgets is the good will of parents and taxpayers. The schools need the population behind them. They need voters lobbying lawmakers to restore education funding. They shouldn’t waste that good will through questionable spending moves. Taxpayers want to see education money reserved for the core function of schools.

 

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20090127/ARTICLES/901271002/1128/OPINION?Title=Spending_priorities

School Choice: We Can All Benefit Academically, Financially

This appeared in the Spartanburg Herald Journal on Sunday, January 25, 2009:

 

 

As a Spartanburg native and the mother of a 3-year-old son, I have a personal reason for becoming involved in our state’s school choice debate. While I’m proud that some of Spartanburg County’s schools consistently score well and even set the pace for our state, it’s naïve to believe that our county’s best schools are all that we are judged on.

 

Ignoring South Carolina schools that don’t do well and repeatedly screaming for “more money” is akin to sticking our heads in the sand and acting like our perennial lowest-in-the-nation rankings will just go away. We all know that’s not going to happen, and we must be innovative to improve and give our children the best available education.

 

Our children deserve better. Our hardworking teachers deserve better. Our parents and taxpayers deserve better.

 

After watching this issue from the sidelines for the past several years, I became active and got involved. Along with other concerned parents who believe in free enterprise and competition, I formed a Spartanburg organization called School Choice Now.

 

If Spartanburg County taxpayers, parents and teachers really understood school choice, they would demand more educational options and an environment that encourages excellence. The S.C. Legislature would surely respond. I don’t claim to be an expert, but one does not need to be to see some common-sense reasons why South Carolina parents deserve universal school choice now.

 

(1) In an economy where we evaluate product options and choose what brands to purchase, why should education be any different? Why do we financially punish taxpayers if they choose alternative options in their children’s schooling? School choice is a great opportunity for families that want to be more involved in their children’s education, and this is one of the biggest reasons I support it. I want that choice, too.

 

(2) Our state gives parents choices for college students (for example, HOPE, LIFE and Palmetto Fellows Scholarships that can be used at public or private institutions) but not to parents of K-12 children. It seems that the education received from kindergarten through high school is just as important, if not more so than a college education, therefore educational choice should extend to K-12 as well.

 

(3) South Carolina will spend approximately $12,480 to educate each child this year. In the current economic times, it may be wise to consider alternative ways to apply this educational funding. For example, in Florida, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Governmental Accountability found that the state’s school choice programs saved taxpayers almost $39 million last year. The study points out that Florida public schools saved more than $6,100 for every one of the 21,493 students who participated in the school choice program — altogether saving the state $118 million in school costs for the 2007-2008 school year.

 

Research done by Florida TaxWatch and the Collins Center for Public Policy at Florida State University confirms that school choice is indeed saving taxpayers serious money. Also cited is a 2007 Friedman Foundation study, which found “Instructional spending per student consistently increased in all public school districts and states that were subject to voucher programs. School choice has not prevented those states and districts from spending more on the students who remain in public schools.”

Fifteen states around the nation implemented school choice programs and reaped similar rewards in saved money and in improved student performance. Most important is that these school choice programs provided parents opportunities to decide whether a public, private or religious school would best meet the needs of their child.

 

If school choice can improve the lives of families in Florida, it can do the same in South Carolina. As the economy struggles and available funds shrink, South Carolina lawmakers may want to consider the financial and academic boon that school choice has been to Florida and other states and implement similar measures here.

 

(4) Every parent and teacher knows that no two children are the same, and although a one-size-fits-all system may have worked years ago, it’s antiquated and needs to be retooled. The answer is to allow for school choice so parents can determine what’s best for their children without penalty or coercion.

 

Since we are 49th in the nation in education, nearly 48 percent of our high school freshmen never graduate and we are consistently found to be not proficient in math and reading, why do we hesitate to implement reform? It’s time to admit that what we’ve done for decades just isn’t working. I believe in the children of South Carolina and the potential they possess. Giving parents choices in education will help children to achieve their potential.

 

We need school choice now.  

Brantlee Dillard Fulmer is the chairperson of School Choice Now, a locally based grass-roots group supporting education reform in South Carolina

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20090125/NEWS/901230260/1132/OPINION?Title=School_choice__We_can_all_benefit_academically__financially

 

Charter School District Deserves Equal Funding

The following op-ed, written by Dr. Timothy Daniels, was published in The State on Monday, January 19, 2009:

Is a public school child a public school child?

While the answer seems obvious, a look at the state’s funding formula reveals not all public school children enjoy equal treatment — at least not students who attend the state’s newest school district. Member schools of the state Public Charter School District receive far less critical student funding than traditional schools or charter schools authorized by local school districts. If uncorrected, this fiscal disparity could adversely affect the ability of our students to access the full educational opportunities available to other students. Furthermore, the funding disparity could discourage new charter schools needed to satisfy the 2,000-student waiting list from joining the district.

Schools within the new district receive only approximately $3,000 per student — a nearly $7,000 shortfall from the average per-student revenue of $9,983 that other schools receive. The difference is lost in local funding. Traditional school districts and the charter schools under those districts’ authority receive an average of $5,516 per student in local funding. Our schools receive no local funding.

Our district and the thousands of families and children it serves are asking the Legislature to revise the education funding formula so all public school children can have equal access to the best possible educational experience. Several schools within the charter school district serve students throughout the entire state, so the educational welfare of those children should be of utmost concern to every legislator.

Our families pay local property taxes for the operations and capital costs of schools as well as state taxes to fund the tax relief provided by Homestead Exemption Act. Yet the children of these taxpayers do not receive funds from these sources to support their public education. We do not believe it was the intention of the Legislature for any taxpayer’s child to be denied educational funding when it passed the act.

As our board President Terrye Seckinger has said, “A charter public school child is a public school child, and charter schools are public schools.” It is our hope the Legislature will act quickly to ensure all of South Carolina’s public school children are provided access to the full funding upon which their education depends.

Dr. Daniels is the superintendent of the S.C. Public Charter School District, which includes the state’s first three cyber charter schools.

http://www.thestate.com/editorial-columns/story/655468.html

Choice Pays Off

This editorial appeared in the Panama City News Herald on December 19, 2008:

Giving students and their parents more opportunities to attend the schools of their choice is first and foremost a fundamental issue of freedom. But a new government study suggests that policy also has fiscal benefits.

Florida’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Governmental Accountability (OPPAGA), the Legislature’s watchdog agency, has concluded that the state’s corporate school voucher program for low-income students saved taxpayers $38.9 million last year.

In these lean budget times, that’s added incentive to expand the program.

The Step Up for Children Scholarship allows poverty-level students to attend private schools using vouchers worth $3,950 that are financed with corporate income tax credits. Corporations receive a 100-percent credit on the portion of their state income tax that they donate to nonprofit alternative education programs.

The report (available online at http://tinyurl.com/4t2slb) calculated that the state saves $1.49 in education spending for every $1 of corporate tax put into the program. It assumes that 90 percent of students who receive the vouchers otherwise would have gone to public schools and that the public schools avoid $6,106 in expenses for each participating student. In Fiscal Year 2007-08, the program awarded scholarships to 21,493 students. Researchers estimated the state avoided $118 million in public school costs during the 2007-08 school year, and after subtracting $79 million in tax credits awarded to the corporations, determined that Florida realized a net savings of almost $39 million.

Critics were quick to jump on the report’s methodology, questioning whether the savings were that great and what the impact on public schools is if they lose that per-pupil funding.

However, two other non-governmental groups, Florida TaxWatch and the Collins Center for Public Policy at Florida State University, have conducted similar studies and reached the same conclusion – the vouchers save taxpayers money. National studies, such as one done in 2007 by the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation (http://tinyurl.com/4jvysc), have also determined that every school choice program is at least fiscally neutral, and most produce a substantial savings. That’s because in nearly every one, the dollar value of the voucher or scholarship is less than or equal to the state’s formula spending per student.

The foundation also reported that from 1990-2006, “instructional spending per student consistently increased in all public school districts and states that were subject to voucher programs. School choice has not prevented those states and districts from spending more on the students who remain in public schools.”

The OPPAGA report concluded that the Step Up for Children Scholarship would “produce additional savings if there is sufficient demand for the scholarships.” The program was capped at $88 million in 2007-08, but thanks to efforts led by Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, the Legislature this year raised the limit to $118 million. Lawmakers should be guided by the needs of students, not the complaints of educrats. Empowering families must be the priority.

http://www.newsherald.com/articles/choice_70461___article.html/editorial_pays.html

Well-Intentioned But Wrong

This editorial appeared in the Spartanburg Herald Journal on Friday, January 2nd:

Some lawmakers and advocates are renewing their call to change the state constitution as a new legislative session starts. They want the constitution to call for a “high-quality” education for every child.

It sounds like a worthwhile goal, and it is. But it shouldn’t be included in the state constitution. If it were, it would cause nothing but problems.

Advocates of this change are upset with a state Supreme Court ruling that the current language in the constitution requires the state to provide only a “minimally adequate” education.

No one wants South Carolina schools to be “minimally adequate,” but advocates of changing the constitution view this as a maximum rather than a minimum. The constitution doesn’t prohibit a high-quality education, it simply doesn’t mandate it. And that’s the way it should stay.

The General Assembly hasn’t embraced the concept of minimally adequate. It is constantly trying to improve the state’s schools.

But changing the constitution would take the matter out of the legislature’s hands and put it into the courts.

The current House bill calls for adding language to the constitution that would require the state to provide “a high-quality education, allowing each student to reach his highest potential.”

But who will define “high-quality”?

This language would result in a never-ending stream of lawsuits, wasting money that could otherwise be put into education. This bill is not really an education measure. It is a jobs-for-lawyers bill.

Every school district that doesn’t think it gets enough money from the state would sue, claiming it can’t provide a high-quality education.

Every parent whose child couldn’t study the language he or she wanted to study would sue, claiming that this child wasn’t getting an education allowing him “to reach his highest potential.”

Every family with a special needs child would demand specific educational opportunities tailored to that child’s specific needs regardless of the cost because, after all, it is his constitutional right to have an education that allows that child to reach not just an acceptable potential but his highest potential.

The amount of money spent on schools and the level of priority placed on education in the state budget is a matter for the people’s representatives in the General Assembly to decide.

If the proposed language were included in the constitution, all these decisions would be subject to litigation in the courts. This is a well-intentioned proposal that should be shot down and forgotten.

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20090102/ARTICLES/901021000/1128/OPINION?Title=Well_intentioned_but_wrong