“Imagine a community park, for example, that is paid for with tax dollars collected by all taxpayers in the community, and managed by a private board of directors. That board has determined that the park may reasonably serve only 100 of the community’s 1,000 residents. The amount of tax levied is adjusted for the park’s capacity. To determine who gets to use the park annually, interested residents subscribe to a lottery, where 100 are chosen each year. Others continue to pay the tax whether chosen for park access or not. The park has a big fence around it, and only those granted access through the lottery may gain entrance. Imagine also that each of the 100 lottery winners must sign a code of conduct to be unilaterally enforced by the private manager of the park. That management firm can establish its own procedures (or essentially have none) for determining who has or has not abided by the code of conduct and revoke access privileges unilaterally.”

This quote is from Diane Ravitch's blog "Bridging Differences" and is accessible here.

Is the park described a public one? Charter schools are just like this and charter schools definitely are promoting separate and unequal. Each Charter is different, but all charters are exempt from the laws that make sure every student can attend. This means charter do not necessarily serve the public, and in fact, most do not even attempt to serve the entire public. They are segregated by race or religion or income level and serve the profit making purposes of their management teams. Even so-called non-profit charters often pay their management high salaries. Charters are not public schools, they are publicly funded private schools, and I resent my tax dollars funding them.

Legislative Underhandedness to pass a bad bill

If you can find the time, please contact your State Senators before next Tuesday, to say that you are against Amendment # 1 to the budget. To make sure they understand what you want, tell them you do not want public funds spent on homeschools or private schools. They have some votes for this bad amendment, and are trying to do some arm twisting to get more before the vote on Tuesday.

Find your legislators and their contact information through links here.

If you want to read about this amendment which is a resurrection of a bad bill, click here.

Here is the history of this bad bill and the underhanded way it is back in play.

1. H4894 passed in the House.
2. S1325, its companion, did not pass, but was referred to the five member Senate K-12 Education subcommittee for study and recommendation. 
3. Three members of the subcommittee realize it is not a good bill, two do not.
4. Rather than send it back to the Senate with a negative report, the subcommittee wanted input from the Senate Finance committee, since the bill reduces tax revenues substantially.
5. Senator Larry Grooms, from Berkeley, is one of the two who did not get his way, so he childishly refused to cooperate and wait for the finance report.
6. Instead, he introduced the bill itself as an Amendment to the budget bill.
7. Now the Senate must vote on whether to add the amendment to the budget.

This selfish refusal to work within the system and abide by the rules of the organization is the kind of thing that is tearing our country apart. Even if you feel that unaccountable schools which are free to refuse expensive-to-educate students deserve public funds, which I do not, you should be concerned about the loss to our state of tax funds. If these bills become acts and are signed by the Governor Haley into law, the erosion of services commonly provided by the state of South Carolina will continue at an ever faster pace. 

Quality of schooling should not depend upon proximity to riches

In Finland, worldwide standardized test scores are very high, so schools in America want to adopt methods from Finnish schools. Using those methods might make a difference for some of our students, because some of our students have a family infrastructure which provides what is needed before education can even be addressed. But of course, those kids would probably do well no matter what teaching methods are used. All over the United States, most students do well if they have: 

• supportive family backgrounds
• well funded schools
• parents who have enough money to take good care of them
• families which value higher education and steer them toward it

Pasi Sahlberg, director general of Finland’s Centre for International Mobility and Cooperation, has written a column for Washington Post blog "The Answer Sheet", in which he points out that societal support precedes educational support in Finland, and that makes a big difference in the child’s educational development. In Finland, the state guarantees support even if the family does not give it. Thus all Finnish students will succeed, not just the ones whose families are wealthy and value education.


Click here for a link to his article on ways Finnish schools differ from ours. It is an eye-opener. Much research in America is actually put into practice in Finland, instead of dying on the sidelines like it does here due to lack of funding or idealogical objections. Sahlberg points out a fundamental problem in our ability to educate each and every student: America’s goal is excellence, but Finland’s goal is equity. A quote from his article:

In the United States, education is mostly viewed as a private effort leading to individual good. The performances of individual students and teachers are therefore in the center of the ongoing school reform debate. By contrast, in Finland, education is viewed primarily as a public effort serving a public purpose.

South Carolina House Bill 4894 would make it harder for us all to succeed, because our entire society will continue to be hampered by those who are not succeeding. H4894 does this by exacerbating the inequitable funding going on in American schooling. It reduces taxes for those who can already afford a private education, thus reducing state revenues and almost certainly reducing school funding. As an example, the state legislature is right now discussing measures for the 2012-13 fiscal year which would increase costs for the Rock Hill School Board by $3.5 million dollars but increase revenues by only half a million dollars.

And while I believe in Public School Choice, due to the inequities which exist from district to district in funding, I question the wisdom of current Senate Bill 1267, which allows students to transfer to a school in another district with no financial penalty. Some allowance is made in the bill for funding differentials, but probably everyone who lives in an economically depressed area will soon just request a transfer to a nearby school in a richer district if S1267 passes, causing even more funding confusion and disparity.

As many of you are aware, House Bill 4894 was passed the South Carolina House of Representatives and is now gone to the Senate. This bill is conservatively expected to reduce state revenues by $37 million in the first year it is implements. It is a bill that benefits only those who can already afford to put their kids in private school, and has some smoke and mirror sections which promise good things for at-risk children but do not deliver. If you have time to call a few of our state Senators, now would be good. Tell them you oppose H4894 and like bills, including S1325, because

1) H4894/S1325 will not help the people it is being touted to help

2) H4894/S1325 will deplete our state coffers and continue the trend of underfunding state infrastructure, including roads, bridges, law enforcement, fire protection, K-12 and higher education and local government

Links to the bills are here: S1325 and H4894

Phone numbers ad emails are below. The only one of our York County legislators who I know actually reads and responds to emails is Wes Hayes. I think it is best to call these folks and just leave a short message if they are not in. Thanks for your interest in the schools and our state.

(R*) Hugh Leatherman, Chairman 803-212-6640 e-mail: SFinComm@scsenate.gov
(R) Harvey Peeler 803-212-6430 e-mail: SMediComm@scsenate.gov
(R) Greg Ryberg 803-212-6320 e-mail: SLCIComm@scsenate.gov
(R) Larry Grooms 803-212-6400 e-mail: STransComm@scsenate.gov
(R) Mike Fair 803-212-6420 e-mail: MikeFair@scsenate.gov
(R) Ronnie W. Cromer 803-212-6330 e-mail: RonnieCromer@scsenate.gov
(R) David L. Thomas 803-212-6240 e-mail: SBIComm@scsenate.gov
(R) John E. Coursen 803-212-6250 e-mail: SEduComm@scsenate.gov
(R*) Billy O’Dell 803-212-6040 e-mail: WilliamODell@scsenate.gov
(R*) Wes Hayes 803-212-6410 e-mail: SEthicsComm@scsenate.gov
(R*) Thomas C. Alexander 803-212-6220 e-mail: SGenComm@scsenate.gov
(R) Danny Verdin 803-212-6230 e-mail: SAgriComm@scsenate.gov
(R) Kevin L. Bryant 803-212-6024 e-mail: KevinBryant@scsenate.gov
(D) Nikki G. Setzler 803-212-6140 e-mail: NikkiSetzler@scsenate.gov
(D) Yancey McGill 803-212-6132 e-mail: YanceyMcGill@scsenate.gov
(D) John W. Matthews Jr. 803-212-6056 e-mail: JohnMatthews@scsenate.gov
(D) Glenn G. Reese 803-212-6108 e-mail: GlennReese@scsenate.gov
(D) Dick Elliott 803-212-6116 e-mail: DickElliott@scsenate.gov
(D) Ralph Anderson 803-212-6032 e-mail: RalphAnderson@scsenate.gov
(D) John Land 803-212-6180 e-mail: JohnLand@scsenate.gov
(D) Phil P. Leventis 803-212-6000 e-mail: PhilLeventis@scsenate.gov
(D) Darrell Jackson 803-212-6048 e-mail: DarrellJackson@scsenate.gov
(D) Clementa C. Pinckney 803-212-6148 e-mail: ClementaPinckney@scsenate.gov

FreedomWorks not telling the truth

I just received a robo-call from an out-of-state group which is trying to influence South Carolina to try a social experiment by damaging public education, and making an obvious attack on one of the most reasonable and sensible State Senators in Columbia: Senator Wes Hayes. As far back as I can remember, Senator Hayes has been a supporter of just about every good bill that has come out of Columbia, but FreedomWorks has targeted him because he is able to cooperate with other people in both parties in order to pass bills that help the people of our state. Senator Hayes does not impose his theories on our citizens, nor does he have a litmus test which people must pass before he works with them, and this is a problem for tea-partiers. Wes Hayes is an open-minded, intelligent moderate person who looks at bills on their merits, and that is why he is being targeted. He will not reject or accept bills merely because they are the latest fashion or because they meet criteria which is in line with tea-party ideology. 

Not only is FreedomWorks (a very misleading name for this group) attacking him, they are telling lies about his senate actions to make it appear that he won’t work with them. Much of what the FreedomWorks site says is partial truth packaged well, and a lot of their principles are bad for our country, but here is a statement from their website (see in context here). 

School choice would allow students to attend school based on factors and qualities that appeal to the student and the parents, instead of being assigned a school based on zip code or bureaucratic mandate. School choice [provides] real choice for all families, not just those who can afford a private education.

Yet they are attacking Senator Hayes, who is the primary sponsor of a Senate Bill 1267 which provides for school choice, and in fact REQUIRES districts to provide choice and let students attend schools out of district also. (You can access S1267 here.)


Why are they after Sen. Hayes right now? Because he has just sent their darling House Bill 4894 to the Senate Education committee to be studied for its effect on K-12 Education in South Carolina, and I hope that the bill will be sent to the Senate Finance committee to study its effect on S.C. finances, which are in pretty poor shape. Any sensible person ought to want both houses of our legislature to study bills which affect our state, and especially bills which affect our state to the extent of causing a $37 million shortage, as this one is predicted to do. And any bill concerning education coming out of the House ought to be scrutinized by the Senate Education committee.

Why don’t they want this bill examined? Because it is a BAD BILL. Here are the problems with H4894:

1. Conservative estimates are that H4894 would remove $37 million from state coffers at a time when we cannot afford it. 
2. Public schools educate everyone, while private schools can accept only the students who are best predicted to succeed.
3. H4894 discriminates by socio-economic status, Only one demographic will benefit: those who can already afford private school.
4. Public schools meet legal standards of accountability and fulfill legal mandates, which private school are not required to meet, legitimately costing public schools more money.
5. H4894 risks losing federal funding, especially for low income and special needs students. S.C. has already lost federal funding due to not meeting state funding requirements.
6. The Business tax Credit offered in H4894 would not benefit anyone, because a family with a low enough income to accept the scholarship must still pay 25% of the tuition, and their income is not high enough to accommodate this 25%. 

Please continue to support sensible government, in the person of Wes Hayes, and tell your friends to do the same. 

Education is important to voters

In March, the College Board commissioned a survey of swing-state voters, asking about education: if candidates are addressing it enough, what aspects of education are most important, and opinions on education policy. what candidates are saying about education. Unfortunately, many candidates are ignoring the subject, however the survey results are interesting. Among them:

• Two-thirds of voters feel that education is a concern ranking about as high as government spending, health care, and the federal deficit. Only jobs and the economy ranked that high by a larger majority (82%)
• In every single demographic, a majority of voters believe more education funding is necessary and over half (55%) are willing to be taxed $200 a year for education. Only about one third do not want to be taxed more for education.
• Priorities for education spending, in order, are: well-rounded secondary education including arts, music, physical education; post-secondary education affordability; more high school vocational programs. 
• Almost all voters feel that education should be a matter of state policy, and many feel that the federal government should be involved.

Our legislators need to stay in touch with their constituents and fund education properly.

To read the full survey, click College Board Ed Survey. 

Very disappointed in the S.C. House of Representatives

Here is a message from Walter Brown, Rock Hill School Board Trustee, Seat Five, who is a tireless advocate with the state legislature for our public schools. A very upsetting vote in the S.C. House of Representatives passed House Bill 4894 which would reduce taxes for the good of all merely because people choose to send their kids to private schools. Thank you to all who tried to stop it. We must now hope our senators have more of a sense of responsibility toward our state instead of toward their rich out of state friends and those who would abandon public education.

From Mr. Brown:

Thanks to all who contacted members of the County Delegation concerning Bill 4894 (Tax Deduction). This, as was pointed out on the floor of the House today, is the first step in implementing a full voucher system for private schools. It was also pointed out that it will eventual lead to elitist schools versus public schools by Representative Brown (no kin) of Fairfield County. Representative Brown also reminded them that their votes had been sold to Howard Rich out of New York. There were many amendments offered by Representative Doug Brannon and others to place accountability on private schools in line with those imposed on public education. I am not sure how he maintained his composure as one amendment after the other was tabled. In fact he was ask at one time to withdraw his further amendments since they would be tabled which he refused to do. As the various members spoke against the bill it sounded like there was a party going on in the House as the Speaker continually ask for order so the speaker could be heard. It was very apparent that the supporters of the bill had no intention of changing their minds and ignored first one speaker after the next. The final vote on the second reading of the bill for passage was 65 to 49.

John King was not in attendance today and is the only member of our delegation not to vote for passage. With the exception of a couple of amendments that were tabled our delegation voted to table all others. Their votes speak clearly on their support of funding private education. They may speak of school choice as being behind their votes but I personally see that as an excuse not a reason or representative of the wishes of their constituents.

Walter Brown