Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions on school choice

e-mail this story discuss this issue in our forums Guest column • Rusty Godfrey: County must right wrongs at Lincoln Cemetery (03/22/05) • Lewis Vaughn: Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions on school choice (03/22/05) • John Warner: InnovVenture aims at global competitiveness (03/21/05) • Diane Smock: Help 'Open Doors' to the YMCA so all may benefit (03/20/05) • Rep. David H. Wilkins: House rolled up its sleeves, made progress this year (03/20/05) More details State Rep. Lewis Vaughn, R-Greer, has served in the House of Representatives since 1989.

I have to say, though, that I totally disagree with Monday's editorial calling for a scaled-back version of Gov. Mark Sanford's school choice proposal. Having worked on this issue for nearly 20 years, I have heard all the arguments against trying something new and innovative like school choice. In this case, The Greenville News comes to the wrong conclusion because it makes the wrong assumptions.

The editorial begins by saying that legislators should listen to their constituents while home for Easter break. What we will hear, they say, is that South Carolinians are wary of this proposal. I beg to differ. I've seen polling, and I was on the Statehouse steps on Feb. 15 in front of 3,000 at the school choice rally.

What I consistently hear — loud and clear — is that parents want and deserve a chance to decide where and how their child is educated. That can only be accomplished by passing a comprehensive bill like Put Parents in Charge. Parents aren't worried about money being "diverted" to an education of their choice, they are worried about a quality education for their child. It's Inez Tenenbaum and the education establishment who are worried about this "diversion" of funds. The Greenville News should not confuse the two.

The editorial then argues the program should be limited to students attending "underachieving" schools. In essence, that's exactly what this proposal does. It gives parents the power and ability to move their child out of a school that they deem "underachieving" — which is the whole point. We have to remember that different kids learn differently. If the goal is to educate every child to the fullest extent possible, educational options must be available to each and every child — regardless of race or income level or where they live.

Certainly, provisions must be made so that low-income families are also empowered, and this bill does so through the scholarship program. The details of the scholarship provision can certainly be debated and amended, but to limit the program to strictly low-income families would not help us obtain the above-stated goal. Additionally, it would serve as a disincentive for families to move up economically for fear of being kicked out of the program.

The rest of the editorial contains arguments taken straight off the antireformers' sheet of music. I believe in the free market system and the concept of supply and demand. When there is a demand, the market will provide — as with any other service. Private schools are in the business of educating children, just like public schools. If parents are looking for alternatives to public education and are willing and able to pay the tuition, private schools will accommodate the demand.

The median private school tuition in South Carolina is $3,200 (and usually lower in rural areas), which means educational options are both affordable and attainable for low-income and middle class families. Obviously, this is not a "giveaway" to the rich, as the editorial states, but is a fair and equitable way to offer choice to all parents.

So while I commend The Greenville News for its school choice coverage, I adamantly oppose and disagree with its assessment. A pilot program or one that further limits eligibility defeats the purpose — which is to empower parents with educational options for their child. Kids from all demographics deserve this opportunity. Let's give it to them.