I have long suspected that within the ranks of the S.C. Republican Party there is a faction whose goal it is to bring about the end of public education in this state. I have believed for some time that that faction was waiting for two key elements to coalesce so it could make its move: a visible leader to initiate the effort and champion the cause and an enabling piece of legislation. The only question was whether the effort would be a direct and unambiguous one (as was the case in the almost 50 years ago in this state when voices were raised to end public financial support for the educational system) or whether the anti-public-school ideology would opt for a less direct strategy via legislative subterfuge.

The faction has found a leader in Gov. Mark Sanford. It has a legislative vehicle in the form of the euphemistically titled Put Parents in Charge Act. And, it is clear now that the strategy is much more subtle and nuanced (some might even say disingenuous), than in the past. The Put Parents in Charge Act is carefully packaged and marketed with all the popular buzzwords to garner maximum support. Nevertheless, it is not what it appears.

It is the proverbial legislative wolf in sheep's clothing. Its specious title is followed by a declaration of legislative purpose contrived both to disguise the ultimate effect of the act and to appeal to principles that have near universal popular support when put forward in the abstract (but which relate only tangentially, if at all, to the act's putative purposes): 1) to restore parental control of education; 2) to improve public school performance, and 3) to expand educational opportunities for children of families in poverty.

However supportive of public education these principles may appear, the Put Parents in Charge Act nevertheless contains the seeds for the undoing of the public school system in South Carolina. Thus, the crux of the Put Parents in Charge debate is not really a question of whether we want to put parents in charge or to support the other stated legislative purposes; rather, it is a question of whether as a matter of public policy we in South Carolina want to continue to support a system of public education or whether we want to begin to dismantle it, or, at the very least, undermine its efforts to improve. (Secondarily, the question is also about the larger consequences of the latter choice.) That is how the debate needs to be framed, and that is the central question that needs to be asked of the act's supporters.

Frankly, I welcome a debate on that question. We engage in a great deal of public-policy debate about this or that piece of education-reform legislation, but very little debate about the existence and purpose of public schooling. That discussion is central to an informed debate about the Put Parents in Charge Act and to exposing the act's serious flaws. Would the act strengthen the important civic mission of public schools or put it in jeopardy? What about the role of strong public schools in promoting the health of the American economy? How would the act affect that mission?

If providing competition for public schools is a principal goal of the Put Parents in Charge Act, such competition already exists in the form a host of nonpublic educational options. In fact, competition and alternative nonpublic-school options have prompted many public school systems to expand options and offer alternatives to meet discrete or special needs. (I clearly see evidence of that here in Horry County.) Perhaps the General Assembly ought to foster within those systems quality responses to those needs rather than undermine their fiscal ability to meet the challenges.

It has been my experience that most, if not all, of the challenges confronting public schools in their efforts to educate all children have been successfully met and overcome by one or another public school somewhere in America. There is a body of knowledge and best practices upon which public schools can draw to meet the needs of all students. Relative to addressing the legislative purposes of improving public school performance and expanding educational opportunities for children of families in poverty, public schools can meet those challenges if we want them to and if we enable them to.