I am the product of public education: from Irmo Elementary School to a Juris Doctorate from the University of South Carolina School of Law. Likewise our identical twin sons have received excellent educations in public schools from Pine Street Elementary School to the Freshman Academy at Spartanburg High School. I can point to seminal teachers and coaches that have impacted their lives in positive ways, and we are forever grateful to each one. In the ninth grade, however, we made a change – a choice. While one son was flourishing, the other son was not reaching his potential. No fault lies with any person, process or institution. Though it has always been apparent that our twin sons, despite being identical, learned differently, responded differently and were challenged differently, it was not until mid-way through the ninth grade that our family chose an educational option other than public education, for one son.
Today, one son continues to thrive in the diverse and rich tapestry at Spartanburg High School while the other son has found his place at the Christian Academy of Oakbrook Preparatory School. As I write today, both sons are turkey hunting on Youth Day with my husband, their proud father. Despite tremendous similarities, a snapshot of this past Friday demonstrates the environmental distinctions from which our boys thrive. One son left our home early Friday with the face paint remnants from the previous night’s Lacrosse game still on his face, the other son left with “work clothes” complete with heavy duty yard gloves and sun screen (knowing full well the probability of sun screen actually being used was limited, at best). Though Spartanburg High School varsity lacrosse lost to Dorman the night before, our son was excited for practice later that day to hear what the Coaches “take” on the game might be, and what lessons were learned from the defeat. Our other son headed off to a service day at Hatcher Gardens where he and other students from Oakbrook Academy fulfilled their community service by working in the garden for the entire school day. Both children’s needs were met and they were growing in distinctively different ways despite genetic and environmental links.
“School Choice” has been a buzzword, and a political litmus test for almost a decade in South Carolina. State Representatives first voted on the issue in 2004, but individual lawmakers, such as State Senator Lewis Vaughn, began sowing the seeds years before. During that decade of deliberation other states passed and aggressively expanded school choice plans. Over 35,000 low-income students in Florida are now enrolled in the school of their parents’ choice through such a program this school year. State budget officials there calculate the tax credits save $1.49 for each dollar in revenues “lost” through credits. Test scores in both the public and private schools have shot up, chipping away at long-standing income gaps. In Pennsylvania, 40,000 students and in Arizona 30,000 have experienced school choice. Newer programs in neighboring Georgia and North Carolina already support thousands more.
The biggest obstacle to the parental choice movement in South Carolina has been the lack of understanding of what School Choice is and the rhetorical terms of the debate. School Choice should be for every family. Independent education choices should also be available for every child, not the privilege of the economic elite. Representative Rita Allison’s passionate defense of the bill on Wednesday was particularly insightful. She explained how the school choice debate is not a zero-sum argument about choosing public “or” private schools; it’s really about “and.” To reduce inequality, to increase parental engagement and to raise student achievement, Allison insists every parent in the state deserves to have real choices for their own child’s education. That means public and charter and private and magnet and virtual and home school; whatever works for the specifics of that pupil’s learning needs.
Representative , another bill sponsor, reiterated Allison’s points at the podium. He stressed that school choice was an issue of how lawmakers set the field for parents to make choices, rather than a micromanagement of specific school policies and programs. “Parents have the most information and best motivation to make decisions for their own children,” he insisted, noting that even the best classroom in an absolute sense might not be the most appropriate for each specific student seated in it.
Just as the terms of debate evolved over time, so too have the specifics of the choice legislation considered. , targets support to low-income students and children with special educational needs through privately funded scholarships. Scholarship donors would be eligible for state income tax credits. Modest tax deductions for families who home school their children or pay out of pocket for independent schools are also part of the plan. While the details of this proposal are well proven through the experiences of other states, the size and scope is modest when compared to choice bills introduced just a few years ago.
School Choice is NOT a dichotomy of public “or” private education. It should be an option for all families in South Carolina who have decided –for one reason or another– that their local traditional public school is not the best fit for their child.
My family had a choice, and so too should every family in South Carolina.
Karen Floyd is the Publisher of Palladian View, a digital magazine for the conservative Republican woman.
I wholeheartedly agree that "throwing money" at any problem is never the be all end all solution. I can't really address your claim that hard evidence shows "legislation like this" has made public education better in FL, GA, AZ, PA, etc. I do know that "school choice" bills mean different things in different states. That statement is too generic to really be refuted. Nonetheless, it isn't clear how providing a tax deduction for private school parents is going to trickle down to the public school system. For families that cannot budget for grade school tuition whatsoever, the deduction does nothing to change that situation. It does, however, alter the budget for the public school system. This "choice" that you keep talking about is eluding me. It seems like rhetoric used to make people feel that something is happening, which really isn't. Full tuition scholarships are great. But the bill doesn't condition the tax credit on full tuition scholarships, nor does a scholarship have to continue through the child's entire school career.
It wasn't a personal attack. I don't do much attacking unless it is an issue with which I strongly disagree and the "attack" is directed at the issue. If my post had been a personal attack, there would have been no doubt about it. Having read the posts in this thread and having recognized that there is a lot of defensiveness in the air per this thread, I'd suggest that there might be several folks who might want to take a step back and breathe deeply. Regardless, I'll feel free to post whatever I want--whether it is pertinent to the primary issue or just poking someone's grandiosity. That is, if it's okay with you. Oh, and by the way, Both my friend (the Emory alum) and I (another Emory alum) and probably other Emory alumni in the area are grateful that there is someone who imagines that mentioning one's Emory roots is being, uh, "pretensious." Who knew? I've already had a call from one, uh, Emory alum who got a kick out of it. Stay loose, bud.
I don't drink anymore but, whoa, that beer is sounding better and better. BTW, one thing that didn't make my post was that I knew no other group of professionals who, to their credit, took themselves less seriously than lawyers. It is not that they don't take their work seriously, they clearly do. But they don't take themselves as lawyers all that seriously. And that is refreshing. The best lawyer jokes I've ever heard were told me by lawyers. Okay, I've taken deep breaths and, instead of the beer, I think I'll head for the gym.
Man, I'm glad I didn't tell you where I did my undergraduate work. You really would have been upset. And I would have had to once again deal with you calling me, uh, "silly." Seriously, tho, Jonathan, it's time to let it be. I'm not responding to your contention that I mentioned an Emory friend in order to find validation. What a crock! Such a comment is far more reflective of your insecurities than any I might have. I don't take it personally because, one, you don't know me and, two, I've read your posts directed toward others in this thread and several of them have contained vitriol similar to that directed toward me. So, why don't we agree not to respond to each other? Perhaps, ever again? It seems as tho you need to have the last word in your arguments, so I'm going to let you. I've got better things to do than respond to this continued, uh, silliness.
I could not find where the bill sets up an SFO or vouchers to help underprivileged or special needs children. Not unless the ambiguous language in Section 2 (A), 2 is the hitch, suggesting that the State will fund the SFO. I may have overlooked something, but H. 4894 does little to improve education in SC. Show me the section I missed.
- A BILL - TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-1145 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A DEDUCTION FROM STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TAXABLE INCOME UP TO SPECIFIED AMOUNTS FOR TUITION PAID BY A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN FOR THEIR CHILD OR WARD TO ATTEND AN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL OR A PUBLIC SCHOOL OUTSIDE THE CHILD'S OR WARD'S SCHOOL DISTRICT OF RESIDENCE, AND TO ALSO AUTHORIZE A SIMILAR INCOME TAX DEDUCTION UP TO A SPECIFIED AMOUNT TO A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN FOR HOME SCHOOL EXPENDITURES; AND BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-1146 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A CREDIT AGAINST A TAXPAYER'S SOUTH CAROLINA INCOME TAX LIABILITY OR CERTAIN OTHER TAX LIABILITY FOR CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO NONPROFIT SCHOLARSHIP FUNDING ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE GRANTS FOR CHILDREN WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL FREE OR REDUCED SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM, WHO ARE "EXCEPTIONAL NEEDS" CHILDREN, OR WHOSE FAMILIES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL MEDICAID BENEFITS TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS OF THEIR CHOICE, AND TO PROVIDE THE PROCEDURES FOR, AND CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THESE TAX CREDITS.
A. Tax breaks to those who chose alternate education for their children with escalator provisions. B. Tax incentives to those who contribute to nonprofit SFOs with caps on the tax incentives achieved by aggregate taxpayer contributions. Opinion; I can’t begrudge the tax break to those who qualify because it’s their money before it’s the States. This is a change in my initial position on the bill. What is still missing and what I couldn’t fathom was that the proponents seemed overly optimistic as it only indirectly supports low income families. Underprivileged children and those with special needs are dependant on charitable contributions. I still think H. 4894 offers little help to improve South Carolina Schools.
In order to assist children whose parents have little or no tax liability, the South Carolina Education Opportunity Act proposes the creation of Student Scholarship Organizations (SSO), which would award scholarships to children who qualify for subsidized lunches or Medicaid. These scholarships may be used by students across South Carolina to pay for tuition costs, including transportation. The bill would allow individuals and businesses to reduce their tax liability by contributing to these non-profit organizations that disperse funds to families to help them pay for their children’s education. With minor differences between districts, these scholarships would be approximately $2,500. The South Carolina Education Opportunity Act follows the model of Arizona, Florida and Pennsylvania in the creation of these student scholarship organizations. By law, these SSO’s would have to distribute 95% of their receipts as scholarships to low-income children.
While I appreciate the genuineness of your stance, the responses you offer do not alleviate the real problem: This bill would result in taxpayers subsidizing the enormously expensive private school bills run up by people who "have" enough to send their children to large, well-funded, superior private schools. At the same time, it would result in the creation of innumerable small, underfunded, inferior, and, by-and-large unregulated "private schools" which would suddenly appear in order to take advantage of this "educational innovation." It would only be to these schools that parents receiving the $2500 "scholarship" could afford to send their child(ren). That the $2500 scholarships would come from contributions made by those who "have" in return for a tax credit--not a deduction, but a credit--makes matters even worse, given that it creates a scenario wherein those who "have" can get their high tuition bills subsidized by taxpayers while, at the same time, receiving tax credits for contributions that function to keep the children of those who "don't have" even more separated from their own kids. Though a family could use a portion of the $2500 "scholarship" for transportation, it simply reduces the amount that family has available to pay for tuition. And you are assuming that a family even has a mode of transportation available to it.
First off, the cost of $37 million is not to the Education Department. The $37million cost is lost revenue due to tax deductions. Public schools lose no real money in the bill. Secondly, and more direct of an answer: When a parent moves their child from an over-crowded school to a school with a smaller student-teacher ratio (both public), the child's original school is able to lower its student-teacher ratio, therefore benefitting the remaining students in the original classroom. When a parent moves their child rom a public school to a private school, the student/teacher ratio in the public school decreases (a good thing) AND the public school will have more money per child now that the child is out of the public school system. So in short: it shrinks student/teacher ratio and increases total amount of $$ per student. All good things.
Parents can deduct most the cost of college tuition and other related expenses. I chose to go to one college, while my sibling may choose to go to a different one - and they both can be public or private schools. It's the same philosophy.
And you are too wrong for words when stating that somehow the deductions a parent receives for college make it irrelevant as to whether a child attends a public or private college. As I said, there is a cap. It is not a floating cap, it is a flat cap. Hence, if your child decides to attend a private college that is much more expensive than a public university, you are going to be paying a lot more and the amount you deduct will be a much smaller percentage of total cost. And your statement that the taxpayer susidization of children attending private schools results in "all good things" is, again, ludicrous. Just begin with the fact that the $37 million dollar figure you throw around comes from tax revenue. Guess what? That is still real taxpayer money being utilized to subsidize children going to private schools---most of it subsidizing the children of parents who are sending kids to the best, most expensive private schools. Sorry, Sport, but I don't want $37 million going to benefit people who don't need any more benefits. No, no, no way. Wow!
I'm probably over-simplifying things here, but it seems to me that $37 million would hire an awful lot of teachers, which would put a significant dent in the student-teacher ratio that is often cited as a benefit of choice. And hiring more teachers would mean less transportation costs to either the parents or schools. The students who transfer schools still have to get to their new school somehow.
The $37 million is money lost from deductions. It's money that the parent would have already paid. If you do not have a child in the education system, your tax dollars are not being converted to a deduction. You already pay a certain amount in taxes that go to the education department. That money does not get returned to the parent. Only the parent's money spent will be deducted. It doesn't effect your tax dollars in the slightest, it effects theirs. It's two separate pots of money.
Secondly - the $37 million is not an expense out of the education budget (which is being increased this year anyway). It is money returned to parents out of tax revenue - different pots of money, different purposes. Most importantly - private schools are held to the same standards as public schools. You can't just open a school in your home and give out diplomas left and right. Every private school is accredited by the state, or a governing independent school association, which in turn is accredited by the state. Private schools have the same standardized tests, same classroom standards for every. Colleges wouldn't accept private school graduates if the standards weren't the same. Private schools are more viable to scrutiny and poor performance, because it's a lot easier to leave a private school than it is a public school...you just stop paying them.
I very well know that there is a cap on the deductions, as there is a cap on the tax credits one can receive from donating to the scholarship fund for less privileged kids. I never imagined the voucher would pay the full cost of private school tuition. But that in no way mediates my point. I do not believe that any taxpayer funds should be used to subsidize private school education. None. Not a dime. Not a nickel. Not a penny. I have a friend and neighbor who has four children enrolled in right expensive private schools. Do you really think I want my taxes or any taxes utilized to help him with his tuition payments? And, to the extent that deductions represent monies to which the state would be privy were it not for an "exception," yes, those monies represent all of our tax dollars. Sorry, your "deduction" argument won't fly. More significantly, the educational/social/cultural issues that would derive from this practice would be so regressive as to take us back down the road toward the dark days of "separate and unequal"--though this time it would not only be race-based but also class-based.
And, no, you are really wrong when you say that private schools are held to the same standards as public schools. You might as well say that parents who are homeschooling their kids are checked up on by the state or some accrediting agency. And when you start talking about "a governing independent school association," which one are you talking about? You know, of course, that there are several and that their standards are very different. No, no, no. Private schools do not "have to" meet the same standards as public schools--some do, but many, many don't. Again, you would have to then argue that homeschooling parents have to meet those standards and somehow be accredited. A choice/voucher system would see a proliferation of small, underfunded, unregulated, and under-performing "private schools" throughout this state. For goodness' sake, we would have to form another agency to oversee all the people who would have to be hired to audit all those little schools.
Please do tell. Don’t leave us hanging. I stated before that I am missing an understanding of the significance of this bill and how it will improve education in SC. Any help will be appreciated. Sorry for this being out of sequence. I needed to find a reply button directly associated with something you posted.
I trust that your "Please, do tell. Don't leave us hanging." is a genuine inquiry. If not, you have wasted my time. But, no matter. It does seem important to articulate one of the unspoken yet primary intents of these bills. I am not saying anything that has not been said in the media, in the legislative chambers, and in informal State House conversations. But it has, oddly enough, not generated much comment in the general public. Simply put, one of the intents/implications of these bills is, as I implied in another post per this subject, to accomplish a virtual re-segregation of education in South Carolina. This time around, however, segregation would be effected along more all-encompassing lines. Where once segregation was simply a racial matter, the new lines of division would be class/cultural/social. Interestingly, they would be racial only where class/cultural/social differences implied race as a factor. Eventuality, more often than not, is indicative of intent.
Sometimes the amplitude of the emotions in a dialogue indicates the degree of passion possessed by the participants. People in South Carolina are passionate about education. Thanks for the incite into the politics of education in South Carolina.