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

School Choice Shouldn’t Be Confined To College Students

This guest editorial appeared in the Charleston Post and Courier on Saturday, November 29, 2008:

People like choices.

This simple aphorism is the basis of South Carolina’s most popular and far-reaching educational reform in the last four decades: state scholarships for higher education.

Throughout South Carolina the HOPE, LIFE and Palmetto Fellows Scholarships have helped thousands of students attend college. Many of the students come from disadvantaged circumstances. Some will be the first in their family to attend college. For others the scholarship helps lighten the load of high interest student loans.

These scholarships can be used at a wide range of public and private colleges and universities. This is a personal choice, rightly left to students and their parents.

The basic concept is simple. College graduates are important for the state’s economy. Helping students obtain a higher degree serves a public purpose. Extending the opportunity to low-income students also reduces social and economic inequality.

These scholarships are an excellent example of school choice. Parents, educators and lawmakers have praised them unanimously.

Which begs the questions: why aren’t we offering similar choices to students in grades K through 12?

It can’t be an issue of student age. State lawmakers have already created a school choice model of tuition scholarships for pre-kindergarten children through First Steps, which has served thousands of low-income families since 1992.

And it is not a matter of money. Per-student spending in South Carolina’s public schools averages $11,480 while proposals for choice scholarships and tax credits rarely exceed $2,500. This would result in a financial windfall for the public schools, which receive most of their money through programs that are funded in block grants.

There must be something peculiar to the K-12 system. Neither public colleges nor public pre-kindergarten schools lobbied to fight against school choice. Both saw it as an exciting expansion of access, not as a threat.

The big difference with K-12 schools is political.

The K-12 public school system is a $7.9 billion dollar a year institution that believes it has the sole civic and moral authority to educate children in South Carolina. It is has raised protection of the organizational status quo above the instructional needs of students. This is a shame.

Through political partnerships with the teachers’, administrators’, superintendents’ and school boards’ unions it has spent millions of dollars to fight change. It even worked hard to block scholarships targeted at special needs and high disability students.

The most telling insight about this mean-spirited fight came from Debi Bush, president of the South Carolina School Boards Association. She recently described a call for universal educational access as a negative attack on “dedicated public school teachers, principals, students and parents.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

Parents in upper- middle- and high-income families already enjoy K-12 choices. They can move between attendance zones or districts, place their kids in a private school or sacrifice a parent’s time and income in order to home school their child. Many other families don’t have these luxuries.

The Department of Education estimates that average private school tuition in the United States was $6,600 per student last year. The average rate was even lower in South Carolina. This is half of public school per-student spending. A $1,000 tax credit or a $2,500 scholarship would dramatically expand the number of families in South Carolina who could afford to consider homeschooling or private schools. This would free millions of dollars for traditional public schools. It would also be a better way to fund public charter, magnet and virtual schools that are struggling to win their share of financial support from local school districts.

Choice has worked well for pre-kindergarten and college students in South Carolina. It has greatly expanded student access to quality instruction. This has benefited the students as well as the public in general.

Students in grades K through 12 deserve the same opportunities.

Randy Page is president of South Carolinians for Responsible Government.

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/nov/29/school_choice_shouldnt_be_confined_colle63348/

School Tax Credits Make Sense for State, Families

This was published in The State on Saturday, November 29, 2008:

 

I’ve been amazed at the increasingly divisive hyperbole from those opposed to private-school choice. The rhetoric is becoming predictable: Supporters of private school choice are driven by money from outside interest groups, they don’t care about poor children; the proposals are designed to help the rich save a few bucks, they’ve been rejected by South Carolinians.

The fact is that many of us have sincere and honorable reasons to support tax credits for private education. As the board chairman of a low-tuition private Christian school located near the Corridor of Shame, I’d like to offer my perspective.

While I was deployed to Afghanistan last year, my oldest daughter began attending the fifth grade at Orangeburg Christian Academy just outside Orangeburg. The teachers are selfless and dedicated individuals who make an average salary well below that of public school teachers, and none of the state benefits. The students are great kids from varied racial and socio-economic backgrounds.

The parents are primarily hard-working men and women who care deeply about their children’s education and character. Many families are willing to tighten belts in other areas to give their children a Christian education. The tuition runs about $3,000 a year, though this figure varies a bit based on the grade level. It can be compared to the $11,480 of combined tax money for students in public school.

Back to my daughter. When I was able to speak with my family from overseas, I discovered a new joy in my daughter’s voice due to her Christian school environment. In particular, she had made a new best friend —an intelligent and well-mannered girl from a hard-working African-American family. My daughter spoke about her all the time. I came back to America about the time the school year ended, but had the pleasure of meeting my daughter’s friend. She was a great companion to my daughter, and I looked forward to both of them continuing their friendship through the years.

During the summer, I was invited to become the chairman of the school’s board and happily accepted. In meeting all the wonderful teachers, parents and students, I felt passionate about volunteering to help in any way possible. I even decided to donate the profits of a book I wrote to low-tuition Christian schools.

When classes started back this fall, my daughter and I were crushed. It turned out that her new best friend could not return because her parents could no longer afford the tuition. I quickly discovered many parents in a similar situation, on the financial edge within the family budget to keep their children at our school. When the financial crisis hit, Principal Cynthia Poor told me about the hardship on parents. One father had broken down in tears because he could no longer afford to keep his children in private school. As a faithful believer, he desperately wanted his kids to receive a Christian education.

When some parents recommended a change to a four-day week to save money, our board quickly met about the issue. There were a number of pros and cons to the change, but for me the decisive factor was the families being able to afford school. We decided in favor of a four-day week, and Ms. Poor implemented that change. There was much work to make it reality. However , but we were willing to do anything to help these families.

Such struggles occur at low-tuition private schools throughout South Carolina. This is why I support tax credits. For those with the resources, a tax credit is likely not the factor preventing private education. However, for many working families, it can make the decisive difference. It’s a win-win situation: We spend $11,480 in local, state and federal taxes for each child in public schools. Doesn’t it make sense to offer a $2,000 tax credit if that will mean one less child to pay for in public school?

Some argue that those favoring tax credits don’t care about the children in South Carolina. That just isn’t true. With tax credits, we are all still responsible for South Carolina’s children. A smaller number of children in public school would not only be funded by their parents and other adults without children, they would also be funded by affluent parents of children in private school. The main difference is that working parents would have an easier time making the same choice as wealthy parents. Isn’t that fair to all?

Mr. Connor is an attorney with Murphy-Grantland Law Firm in Columbia and chairman of the board of Orangeburg Christian Academy.

http://www.thestate.com/satopinion/story/604899.html

 

Parents Deserve Educational Options

This was printed in the Charleston Post and Courier on Thursday, November 20th:

When they read in Saturday’s newspaper about the sacrifices Candace Capers makes for her children’s education, a sympathetic public offered her money, job assistance and even a car. The response was heartwarming for the single mother whose children live with her grandmother and attend schools in Mount Pleasant rather than live with her and attend struggling downtown schools.

On our Commentary page yesterday, Dr. Nancy McGinley, superintendent of the Charleston County School District, lamented that parents are not all aware of the progress that is being made in schools — including inner-city schools like the ones Ms. Capers avoids.

While we appreciate the superintendent’s efforts and applaud the progress that the district has made in the past five years, we also appreciate Ms. Capers’ predicament. Poorer-performing schools might be getting better, but their scores still aren’t at the level of schools like Whitesides Elementary or Moultrie Middle. The Capers children have 12 years each to get an education, and their mother made the decision that waiting for test scores to catch up isn’t an option for her children.

Other parents face a similar situation. Who knows how many would like to follow Ms. Capers’ example, but lack the wherewithal to do so?

Children should have every opportunity to learn well and score high. Families ought to have options, and taking advantage of those options shouldn’t be so difficult.

One argument against schools giving parents choices goes like this: Committed parents like Ms. Capers will leave poor schools behind, and, in doing so, will leave those schools with a dearth of parental support.

We don’t have a good answer for that. We don’t know how to get children from one part of the county to another where schools fill their needs better. Maybe some of the district’s trustees can offer a clue.

But we believe that children like Candace Capers’ three youngsters shouldn’t have to sleep on the floor at their great-grandmother’s house in order to get the education their mother wants for them.

By all means, keep up the crusade to make all schools good schools. If that happens, the whole problem will simply go away. Meanwhile, practical options should be available for parents and children who want a choice.

This Tax Credit Pays

The following article appeared in the New York Post on October 21, 2008:

By ADAM B. SCHAEFFER

EVEN as the debate continues on whether vouchers help improve education, New York lawmakers should have an eye on another important benefit of programs that make it easier for families to choose private schools: huge savings for state and local governments.

New York state faces a budget hole as high as $2.5 billion this year, with even bigger shortfalls in the years ahead – and local governments are strapped, too.

Meanwhile, the economic slowdown will prompt many families who can no longer afford both taxes and private-school tuition to move the kids into public schools – adding to the pressure. The schools will need to spend more – even as tax revenues drop.

Because so many New York kids now attend private schools, governments face a potentially massive rise in costs from a spike in public-school enrollments.

Public schools in Manhattan have already reported a surge in interest from private-school families hit hard by the financial meltdown. The trend is likely to move upstate as the economy dips into recession.

At current levels of per-pupil spending, just a 1 percent drop in private-school enrollment will put New York governments on the hook for about $100 million a year. A 10 percent swing means about $1 billion more in school spending.

A look at the numbers explains why: New York has one of the largest private-school populations in the country, with almost 16 percent of all K-12 students opting out of government institutions. And when all costs are counted, the state’s public schools spend a whopping $20,000 per pupil.

Thankfully, there’s a way to avoid getting slammed by huge new demands for public-school spending while saving even more money and improving education: A broad-based, moderate-sized education tax credit would help families stay in private schools, preventing their children from burdening taxpayers with the public school’s (much greater) price tag. The credit would also help others make the switch to the private sector, easing the burden on taxpayers even more.

Education tax credits reduce the amount a taxpayer owes the government for each dollar he spends on his own child’s education or on scholarships for children who need them. That money comes straight off a person’s tax liability, so it’s a dollar-for-dollar benefit: You can either pay it to the government or use it on the kind of education you want to support. Tax credits for donations to scholarship organizations help support school choice for lower-income families, while personal-use credits help middle-class families send their own children to a good school.

A recent Cato Institute analysis of model tax-credit legislation shows that New York stands to save more than $15 billion in the first 10 years. Fifteen years into the program, Empire State taxpayers would save an estimated $4.8 billion every year.

With such savings from a reform that injects proven parental choice and competition into education, it’s no surprise that tax credits are growing in popularity with US lawmakers of all parties.

When Florida’s donation tax-credit program became law seven years ago, only one Democratic legislator voted for it. This year, a third of statehouse Democrats, half the black caucus and the entire Hispanic caucus voted to expand that program.

Arizona, Rhode Island and Iowa all passed education tax-credit initiatives in 2006, and Pennsylvania expanded its existing program. The Arizona, Iowa and Pennsylvania bills became law under Democratic governors, and the Rhode Island business-tax credit was born in a Democrat-controlled Legislature.

The momentum is still building. A government fully controlled by Democrats in Iowa – governor and both legislative houses – actually expanded the tax-credit dollar cap by 50 percent in 2007. Just this year, Georgia passed a $50 million program with no family-income cap on student eligibility.

Gov. Paterson supports education tax credits because he knows school choice improves education and saves children from failing schools. Now he has billions more reasons to support it.

The Legislature should join with Paterson to help improve education and the state’s balance sheet. Education tax credits can make these trying financial times a whole lot easier for everyone.

Adam B. Schaeffer is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom.

http://tinyurl.com/67qvu9

School Choice: A Special Pick Parents Make

By David Casas

For the Journal-Constitution

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

At a recent state Board of Education meeting, officials gave approval for almost 1,600 Georgia special needs students to earn scholarships to attend private schools —- an 80 percent surge over the 2007-2008 school year.

While this is only the second year of the Georgia Special Needs Scholarship Program, 1,596 parents from throughout the state voted with their feet for more school choice. When their neighborhood school didn’t do the job, they snapped up scholarships and found a school more tailored to their child’s learning style.

During the initial year of the program last year, most of the private schools that chose to participate were in metro Atlanta. But this year, there are 145 schools statewide from Winder to LaGrange, from Dalton to Albany. That has given parents of children with disabilities such as Marie Leon of Duluth the opportunity to shop around and take advantage of the program.

Leon’s son Jonathan, 10, is a fifth-grader this school year at Integrity Christian in Lilburn. Jonathan, who has mild autism, earned a special needs scholarship to transfer from B.B. Harris Elementary to Integrity this fall. Leon couldn’t find a school last year where the scholarship would cover the entire tuition. But this year, there were more participating schools on the list, such as Integrity, where tuition was $5,645.

There are seven private schools in Gwinnett County now participating in the special needs program.

Leon said she was particularly attracted to Integrity because school officials said Jonathan could work toward a high school diploma. “It always disdained me that at his previous school they told me he would go to school for 14 years and would only get a certificate of attendance,” Leon said. “Here he is getting extra attention and seems to be doing very well.”

Like many children, Jonathan is thriving because he is in a smaller school with smaller classes. The school’s director keeps an eye out for him. With the scholarship program, Leon has to pay for outside speech therapy, but she says it is worth it to get her son in a more productive environment.

“I always believed he would be able to function at a higher level,” Leon said. “His grades are A’s and B’s.”

To qualify for a special needs scholarship, a student must have been enrolled in a public school during the prior school year and have an individual education plan. Then a parent can go to the state Department of Education Web site and learn the amount of the scholarship for their child. That scholarship follows the student until he or she graduates or turn 21 years of age.

Public schools do an excellent job of providing a free and appropriate education for most children who are enrolled in special education programs. Every special needs child deserves the best education possible.

But as Leon has experienced, one difficulty in the public school can ruin a child’s future —- and an entire life.

That’s why we will continue to see parents flock to school choice programs such as the Georgia Special Needs Scholarship.

Parents can make the best decision where their son or daughter should attend school and what environment is best.

It is enormously challenging to be the parent of a child with special needs.

Hopefully the Georgia Special Needs Scholarship is bringing some sense of normalcy to children and their parents who are finding hope in smaller classrooms, different schools and happier educational environments.

> David Casas, a Republican state representative from Lilburn, was the sponsor of the Georgia Special Needs Scholarship in the Georgia House.

South Carolina Needs School Choice NOW!

I live in SC, I am a parent, and I am concerned about the current state of public education. If you live in SC, whether you have school age children or not, you should be concerned as well. According to the SC Education Oversight Committee website, where school and district report cards may be found, www.sceoc.org , for the first time in 5 years our school district received an Unsatisfactory Improvement rating. Arguably one of the best school districts in the state, we have a fine superintendent, a committed school board, and an active parent community.

However, only 42.7% of 8th grade students scored proficient or advanced in math, only 54.1% in science, and a dismal 37.7% in social studies.  Meaning only about 50% of rising freshman are well prepared for high school math and science, and only a little over a third are well prepared for high school social studies. Contrary to what the SDE would have us believe, scoring Basic does not a well-prepared student make. The very defintion of Basic is “minimally prepared”.

School districts like to focus on the upper end of scores but don’t explain why 9-15% of students score BELOW BASIC, yet the retention rate is only 1.8%.  Our district touts a best-in-state 84% on time graduation rate, yet only 71% of African American students graduate on time. How do we accept that almost 30% of African American students do not graduate on time? How do we accept that only 17.5% of African American students score proficient, while over 50% of white students score proficient? 

Out of 562 high school students participating in HSAP, only 75.5% scored a grade of 70 or above in science. How did one of the top high schools in the state FAIL to teach  science to over 128 students??? 

I know what some of you may be thinking, “Quit your whining, you should see MY childs school report card!”

Exactly my point. If one of the best districts in the state, with average per pupil spending in excess of $10,000, an average annual teacher salary of over $46,000, and average annual administrator salary of almost $84,000, can not post better results than these, the system is in serious trouble and the losers are the children. Our children.

Overall, SC public school scores are dismal and embarrasing: 8th grade PACT Scores for 2008 show more than 30% of students score BELOW BASIC in Math.  Percentages are numbers – let’s talk students, children, our children. That 30% translates into 15,348 8th grade students who were failed by the state public education system. It gets even worse in science – they only test HALF as many students and 36.6%  tested below grade level! What would happen if they tested all students in science and social studies? I shudder to think. 

Remember, only “proficient” and “advanced” mean testing at or above grade level, and only 20% of 8th graders scored at or above grade level in MATH. It’s no wonder South Carolina’s on time graduation rate hovers around 49th or 50th in the NATION. SDE disputes the figures, saying the rate is 70.9%, but third party analysts and education experts claim the rate is closer to 50%. (Education Week and Dr. Long from Clemson University)

When it comes to SAT and ACT scores, SC ranks 49th nationally, according to “The High School Crisis in the United States and South Carolina; The Problems Related to Dropouts and Recommended Solutions”, Richard Young, University of South Carolina, 2005. (http://www.ipspr.sc.edu/publication/The%20High%20School%20Crisis%20in%20the%20US%20and%20SC.pdf)

The data is overwhelming that SC public education is not serving our children well. It takes years of unsatisfactory improvement ratings for any kind of choice to be made available. Currently, “choice” usually means moving to another similarly performing school within the district, at your own travel expense.

Over 60,000 children, approximately one-tenth the student population, are attending private schools and thousands more are educated at home. The average private school tuition in SC is $4,400, and THEY manage an on time graduation rate of between 85 – 90% . SC home school students score nearly 200 points higher on the SAT than their public school counterparts (according to the South Carolina Association of Independent Home Schools, a state mandated department). Average cost to home school ranges from $1000 to $2500, not counting the lost wages of the full-time, home-bound parent. Why can thousands of SC children be well-educated at a fraction of the cost? Can you say bureaucratic overhead, fancy-sounding committees, and well-intentioned, but failing million-dollar-programs? 

Families choosing private and home school options tighten their belts and pay out of their own pockets, all the while subsidizing failing public education with their property tax or sales tax dollars. (Despite property tax reform, rental property owners pay luxury tax rates and continue to see “school tax” on their annual bills.)

Disgusted? Shocked? Contact your legislator or candidate and tell them to finally DO something about the dismal state of South Carolina Public Education. Get involved, ask questions, attend school board meetings, and support real school choice. The children of South Carolina can’t afford to wait another year.