RICHLAND/LEXINGTON COUNTIES
Tuesday, March 31st
Vista Community Room
Suggs & Kelly Law Center
500 Taylor Street, Columbia
6:00 p.m.
PICKENS COUNTY
Thursday, April 2nd
Central Clemson Library
105 Commons Way, Central
6:30 p.m.
Archive for January 2009
Upcoming Regional Meetings
In Uncategorized on January 27, 2009 at 4:36 pmSpending Priorities
In Uncategorized on January 27, 2009 at 4:29 pmThis 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
In Uncategorized on January 26, 2009 at 9:19 amThis 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
Charter School District Deserves Equal Funding
In Uncategorized on January 19, 2009 at 12:54 pmThe 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.
Choice Pays Off
In Uncategorized on January 6, 2009 at 11:07 amThis 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
In Uncategorized on January 6, 2009 at 11:04 amThis 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.
