10/14/04

School tax credit bill splits parents, legislature
By Mike Gellatly

If you could send your children to any school, public or private, which would it be? In November, there will be a general election not only to decide the president but also several referenda will be held; one of these will be whether or not to ratify Governor Sanford’s ‘Put parents in charge act’.

This proposal will give parents the opportunity to use up to $4,600 of tax credits towards entering their children into private school. The plan hopes to create a market effect on education raising general standards through competition and ostensibly save the education system money by reducing class sizes and general population in public schools.

The proposed plan will give families who make less than $75,000 a year a reimbursement for private school tuition, the cost of home-schooling or fees to attend a public school in another district.

The bill breaks down the tax credits into school groups; $3,200 for students in kindergarten, $4,000 for grades one through eight and $4,600 for those in high school. Also special provisions are made for those who qualify for reduced cost or free school lunches.

The bill could also help those who home-school their children as far as they can claim reimbursement for money spent on textbooks, tutors and other school supplies.

“ It’s giving parents more choices to determine for themselves what’s in the best interests of their own kids,” said Governor Mark Sanford. “It brings a real market pressure to bear on the current system.”

The South Carolina Independent School Association (SCISA) says the average tuition at its member schools is about $4,000 annually, and these private schools educate around 55,000 students.

Larry Watt, director of the 100-member SCISA said, “We see this as relief for our parents, primarily with no strings attached for our schools. It’s a win-win for us.”

Proponents of the plan believe it “empowers parents.” The proposed legislation, sponsored by House Speaker Pro Tem Doug Smith, (R-Spartanburg) will allow parents to reclaim income and property tax.

“ (This plan is) a very important, innovative, and aggressive proposal to bring more options to families of school children,” Smith said.

This plan, which was proposed in February, has come to public attention again as school boards and educators have been decrying it.

“ This act will be to the detriment of our funding,” said John Bonaparte, chairman of CSD1 during the monthly board meeting in August.

Asking all the boards to oppose this will join them with many others in opposition. Other school officials echoed Bonaparte’s sentiments.

“ Anything that would divert attention and funds from the public schools is a threat to our democracy,” said John Tindall, superintendent of the District 2 public schools.

“Public schools are the best investment; they have made a greater contribution to the growth and development of our country than any other institution.”

Other parties opposed to the plan argue that funding of the public schools as much as possible is essential.

“ It would be totally a huge, gigantic step in the wrong direction to take money out of the public school system,” said Rep. Joel Lourie, D-Richland. “But that’s what it’s doing. There will be less money to go to public education.”

But, the opposition to this plan is not simply coming from political opposition. Rep. Ronnie Townsend, (R-Anderson) chairman of the House Education Committee, believes that this bill is not the first issue which should be dealt with, and it is being considered before other, more relevant issues concerning school choice. Other opponents of the proposal believe that low- and moderate-income families are not as likely to benefit as it is made out.

“ Most can’t afford to pay $9,000 to $10,000 in private tuition up front, in hopes of getting a tax credit in the spring. Most low-income people don’t even itemize their taxes. This is another shell game,” said Richard Miller, executive director of the South Carolina Education Association. “It’s only impacting those who can afford to pay.”

Some question even the most basic premises of the bill, and its argument that it will save money if fewer people are in public schools.

“ The cost is not going to go down because a few children have the opportunity to go into private schools,” said Paul Krohne, president of the state Schools Boards Association. “To say there will be substantial savings at all is bizarre when you’re causing less money to come in to begin with. It will cost just as much to provide lighting to a classroom for 25 kids as 21 kids.”

The bill, if passed, will be phased in over a year for those entering kindergarten through 4th grade and then extended to grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 over the next four years.