This is a printer friendly version of an article from
www.goupstate.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose
Print.
Back
Article published Feb 27, 2005
School choice: A matter of perspective
Robert W. Dalton
Staff
Writer
The fight over Gov. Mark Sanford's school choice plan comes
down to a question of perspective: Is the wallet three-quarters full or
one-quarter empty?Supporters of "Put Parents in Charge," Sanford's proposal to
give tax credits to families to send their children to private schools, say the
plan provides additional money for students who remain in public
schools.Opponents say it will drain money from public schools."What's really
important to point out is that there are going to be substantial resources left
with the public school," said House Speaker Pro Tem Doug Smith, the bill's
primary sponsor. "That's why public schools in areas that have done this have
done better."According to the third version of the bill, which was introduced
Thursday, middle-income parents could take 51 percent of the per-pupil state
spending on K-12 education, or $2,600 assuming state spending of $5,000 per
pupil. Supporters say that would leave $7,400 -- based on expenditures of
$10,000 per pupil including federal and local funding -- with the public
school.For students eligible for free or reduced lunch, the tax credit would be
64 percent of per-pupil state spending, or $3,200. But those families in
actuality wouldn't have enough income to qualify for any tax credit and would
therefore have to rely on Scholarship Granting Organizations that the bill
creates to cover the cost of the tuition.Companies that donate money to the
scholarship organizations also would be eligible for tax credits.Families with
less than $75,000 in taxable income and two exemptios would be eligible for the
credits. The income cap goes up by $5,000 for each exemption. To have $75,000 in
taxable income, a family would have to earn more than $90,000.Smith concedes
that the proposal takes money from public schools, but not from public education
– a distinction that he says is critical."Our obligation is to publicly educate
all children, whether it's in a public school, private school, faith-based
school or home school is irrelevant," Smith said.Smith and other supporters say
that a public school that loses $2,600 also loses the obligation to educate the
child that leaves for public school, freeing up $7,400 to spend on the students
who remain.Rep. Shirley Hinson, R-Goose Creek, said about 12 percent of the
state's students, or about 81,000, would take advantage of the tax credits.
About $210 million in state funding would go with them to private schools."We're
only talking about $200 million from more than $6.5 billion in total education
spending," Smith said. "One important thing to consider is the efficiency of
private schools in educating children as opposed to the $10,000 the state would
have to use. That's a massive savings that allows the state to use the money in
areas where it's badly needed."Jim Foster, a spokesman for the state Department
of Education, says supporters are using flawed math – that $2,600 gone is $2,600
gone, not $7,400 saved."Where do you get the savings from?" Foster said. "You've
still got to pay the light bill, you've still got to pay the water bill, you
can't stop running a bus, you still have to buy gas for the bus and you cant lay
off the bus driver."Foster said there could be savings on supplies and maybe
textbooks, although books are used for four to five years so there would be no
savings initially.The only way there is going to be real savings, Foster said,
is to have enough kids leave so that a school can consolidate classes and lay
off teachers. At the anticipated 12 percent exodus, that won't happen."What they
seem to be saying is that you have to look at it district wide and enough kids
will leave," Foster said. "They seem to be saying we should rezone every
year."Scare tactics put into useThe debate over "Put Parents in Charge" has
ranged from the implausible – supporters insisting that taking money out of
public schools would increase public school funding at the same time – to the
nasty.Sanford ruffled some feathers during his State of the State speech while
talking about the success of Milwaukee's voucher program when he said, "Can you
imagine tears being shed because you got into the public school in Allendale or
Marion?"The governor also brought school violence into the debate during a Feb.
15 rally for the bill at the Statehouse, telling the crowd about a teacher being
robbed in the parking lot of a Sumter school and saying that "Put Parents in
Charge" could help alleviate such situations.But in Milwaukee, the city that
supporters hold up as a model, one private school was kicked out of the voucher
program in late January because of safety concerns.A fight broke out at the
Academic Solutions for Learning, one of the city's largest voucher schools,
while teachers were protesting because they had not been paid. The fight
escalated an eventually involved more than 100 students and it took police about
90 minutes to restore order.It was the sixth time in two months that police were
called to the school because of violence.The school was closed for the remainder
of the week after the fight, and then removed from the voucher
program.Supporters aren't the only ones resulting to scare tactics.State
Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum claims the proposal could decimate
state funding for health care, law enforcement and road improvements. She also
said the Scholarship Granting Organizations are the "most dangerous" part of the
plan and that they could cripple the state's general fund and wipe out its AAA
credit rating.Rep. Mike Anthony, D-Union, an educator and former football coach,
said he believes the debate has taken the ugly turn because of Tenenbaum's
failed bid for the U.S. Senate. Tenenbaum, a Democrat, lost out to Jim DeMint, a
Greenville Republican."It's not about the kids anymore," Anthony said. "If it
were we'd be truly trying to fix the problems we have instead of turning it into
a political issue."Smith said fixing the problems is the reason he sponsored the
legislation."If school choice isn't the way, then show me the way," he said. "We
have severe dropout rates, we have severe reading and writing issues that we
have to focus on. The Department of Education fought accountability for years,
but because of accountability the problems are out in the open. Now we've got to
solve them."Groups across nation are involvedSeveral groups both inside and
outside the state are trying to influence the debate.All Children Matter, a
Michigan-based voucher advocacy organization, pumped money into the state trying
to get plan supporters elected in 2004.A study commissioned by the S.C. School
Boards Association and the S.C. Association of School Administrators concluded
that "Put Parents in Charge" would cost the state's schools about $350 annually.
Supporters are expected to release their own study this week that shows the plan
saving the state money.South Carolinians for Responsible Government, which
supports the plan, and the South Carolina Education Association, which opposes
it, have spent thousands of dollars on advertising.SCRG spokesman Denver Merrill
said his group is behind the bill because "better educated children will help
South Carolina as a whole.""The state has been putting more and more money into
public education, and it's just not succeeding," Merrill said. "We believe that
school choice can make a difference, and if South Carolina can be a role model
for the rest of the country then so much the better."Merrill said that SCRG is a
grassroots organization that is about 80,000 strong. It has "a relationship"
with Legislative Education Action Drive (LEAD), an Illinois-based tuition
tax-credit advocate."They have expertise in this area and we do utilize their
resources," Merrill said. "They are a consultant resource for us."Merrill said
LEAD has not given any money, but it has put SCRG in touch with people who have
donated to the cause.A new group, Choose Children First, consists of business
people and legislators who oppose the plan. The group includes Rick Ott, senior
executive vice president of Columbia-based M.B. Kahn Construction; Lee Bussell,
CEO of Columbia public relations firm Chernoff Newman; and Samuel Tenenbaum, a
retired steel executive and the husband of Inez Tenenbaum.Choose Children First
is expected to make its first splash this week, prompting Merrill to issue a
pre-emptive strike."I ask whoever will listen to take a hard look at who these
guys are," he said. "They are contractors and consultants who make a lot of
money from the current system, so they have a vested interest in keeping things
the same way."Robert W. Dalton can be reached at 562-7274 or
bob.dalton@shj.com.