Debate over school choice needs to be better defined

e-mail this story discuss this issue in our forums Guest column • Keith Munson: Look out for the Legislature's 'impetuous vortex' (01/24/05) • Doug Kondra: Upstate has reached out to tsunami victims (01/22/05) • Douglas Stevens: Sister cities program gives Greenville worldly profile (01/19/05) • Alex Martin: Career and technology education opens doors to opportunity (01/18/05) • Reggie Ecarma: King's vision did not see special preferences for anyone (01/17/05)

While Mr. Ray no doubt is sincere in what he wrote, the entire premise of his argument is wrong because he, as many in the education system do, seems to have forgotten that there is a distinction between the institution of "public schooling" and the goal of "public education."

"Public education" is not bureaucrats and buildings — it's an ideal that all children should have access to a good education.

That is simply not occurring under the current system. "Put Parents in Charge" would be a step toward making that happen.

Sadly, the bureaucrats and buildings are what he and the education establishment are defending, and not the actual goal of educating every child to the best of our ability. Opponents of reform are blurring the lines between the end and the means — educating our children and reforming the system. The system isn't what we should be concerned about — it's the children who are stuck in certain underperforming schools.

It's correct to state that the vast majority of teachers and principals are working hard and are dedicated to teaching. But that doesn't change the fact that we are still last in graduation rates, last in SAT scores and have the highest dropout rate in the nation. And it's certainly not their fault that there is such an achievement gap between blacks and whites. This effort is not an indictment of our teachers, but clearly, something other than the status-quo must be done.

The "Put Parents in Charge" proposal is that something. It takes the best elements of school choice programs across the country and combines them into one program for South Carolina. It's a tax-relief measure that helps middle-class and low-income families decide what education best suits their child — whether it's public, private, charter or home schooling. It gets parents involved and rectifies the inherent problems associated with a one-size-fits all system.

Contrary to what Mr. Ray and other critics state, there is evidence that choice programs are effective. Research done at Harvard, Princeton, the University of Wisconsin, the Manhattan Institute and other places concurs that choice programs work to improve achievement and increase parental satisfaction. Those opposed to reform will always find reasons to fault this research, but it's there and it's conclusive.

The refusal of those in the education establishment to acknowledge the distinction between "public schooling" and "public education" is a major problem. Ultimately, if their mindset is not changed, it will undermine our children's future. The signs are already here in South Carolina — high unemployment, high incarceration rates and a stagnant economy. We must do something to change this scenario, and it begins with real education reform.

Real reform will only be accomplished, though, if South Carolinians realize that the institution of "public schooling" and the goal of "public education" are not one and the same. The most effective way to demonstrate a true commitment to "public education" is to give all parents and children the capability to determine what educational approach best serves their individual needs. "Put Parents in Charge" would be a promising start.

Loftis has represented the Berea-area District 19 in the South Carolina House of Representatives since 1996. Loftis is a former trustee of the Greenville County School Board, and he owns a local insurance agency.