For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit www.thescea.org.
ANDERSON LEADERS SHRED SANFORD VOUCHER PLAN
Despite a hard sell from home-school advocate Kristin Maguire of Greenville, residents in Anderson County tore into Governor Mark Sanford's voucher-and-tax-credit plan in a public forum on Thursday. Maguire, who still occupies a seat on the State Board of Education as Sanford's personal appointee, complained of a "disconnect" on the part of Anderson County questioners when she was unable to address some of their fundamental criticisms.
The forum, sponsored by the Anderson County Alliance for Local Leadership and attended by about 250 people, featured S.C. Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum and Maguire, who said she took the invitation when former Sanford advisor Barbara Nielsen wasn't available.
Maguire opened the program with twenty minutes of remarks in support of Sanford's voucher plan, explaining that the plan was needed "to provide the best for all children in South Carolina," and offering a litany of failures by public schools. "Just over half of our students are graduating, and only 10 percent of African-American eighth-graders are proficient readers," she said.
Reminding the audience of her position on the State Board, Maguire told them, "I'd like to say that we're making progress in closing the achievement gap but we're not. The best and the brightest in South Carolina are about 50 points behind the best and the brightest in the nation on SAT scores."
"It's about tax credits, about enabling children to go to schools of choice," she offered, finally turning to the bill. "It does it in a neat mechanism: the lesser of either 80 percent of tuition of half of what [a parent or guardian] spends on education each year. The second way is through SGOs [voucher-granting organizations]. You could write a check to an SGO and the SGO can write a check to a child to attend schools of choice."
"The details are too intricate to go through," Maguire said, although listeners had assembled to hear about the details of the bill. She used a packed lunch to offer a flawed example of public education funding, with a turkey sandwich representing state funding, a bag of carrots representing federal funds and a plum representing local dollars. She suggested that a child opting out of a public school only takes half the state funding away from the public school. "We end up with a lot left over," she beamed.
Unfortunately, public school funding is a more complex subject than this. Districts are allotted state funds based on student enrollment, and federal funding can be tied to percentage of a county's students in poverty, or student enrollment, or both. So when a student leaves public schools, the allotment of state dollars AND the matching federal funds are reduced by one student.
Further, Maguire's assertion that state funding "is the biggest portion" of education expenses was off-the-mark. According to provisos pending in the current budget proposal, because of the legislature's sustained under-funding of the Education Finance Act (EFA), the state's average share in 2005-06 is projected to be $4,296, the local district's obligation is $4,566 and the federal portion is $964. This assumes that the legislature will fully-fund the EFA in the 2005 -06 budget.
Witnessing -- and hearing -- disbelief from many in the audience, Maguire reversed course. "Technically, technically, there will be fewer dollars coming into the state," she admitted. "But we have an obligation to make sure that all children have an opportunity to get a good education, and while we have made gains, we are still so far behind."
In her own remarks, Superintendent Tenenbaum focused on the bill's details that Maguire avoided, and knocked down the charge that South Carolina's public schools have made no progress.
"This is a very serious proposal, every bit as important a debate as the Education Finance Act, the Education Improvement Act and the Education Accountability Act. This gives a tax credit to every parent or guardian who sends their kids to private and parochial schools, and it gives another credit to people and corporations who contribute to SGOs," she said.
"Proponents say it will save money, but the Board of Economic Advisors says it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars: $234 million in the last estimate," she added. Individuals and companies "could transfer their whole tax liability away from the General Fund by setting up an SGO and diverting their taxes to it. So it's unaffordable. There's no way South Carolina will save money, and there are no caps on any of it."
"We have accountability under No Child Left Behind, but there is little or no accountability in private schools," she explained. "Many are accredited by the Southern Association for Accreditation of Colleges and Schools, but religious schools are not required to have accreditation. In contrast, our public school system is wide-open: we have accreditation requirements, certification requirements and criminal background checks for our teachers."
The only accountability in Sanford's voucher plan is represented by "12-year study by the Department of Revenue and the Budget and Control Board comparing public schools to private and parochial schools, but no private or parochial schools has to participate in it; participation is voluntary. It's a secret study to see who's better. Does that sound fair to you?" Tenenbaum asked.
"This is a backdoor voucher plan. This is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a predator that will eat away at our public education system in South Carolina," she declared.
She referred to a series of charts demonstrating dramatic gains in South Carolina student achievement during the past four years compared to national gains during the same period, and reductions in the number of the state's low-performing schools . "I want to thank the teachers in the room who created these results," Tenenbaum said, drawing the loudest and longest sustained applause of the evening.
Finally, she quoted objective studies conducted by Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, Stanford and Columbia universities and by the U.S. General Accounting Office demonstrating that voucher programs do not substantively improve student achievement.
Given five minutes to respond to Tenenbaum's presentation, Maguire attacked public schools again. "Foundationally, we want parents to be in charge, not superintendents assigning kids. We've got to be more aggressive about giving choice, and I know it's gonna improve the quality of education in all schools."
"To say it's a voucher plan is not true. To say it's unproven is misleading," Maguire continued, citing several European nations that sponsor voucher programs. "And the spectre of $2 billion going to SGOs is absolutely absurd."
In her own rebuttal, Tenenbaum quoted private school headmasters who, in public dialogue and in private conversation with the superintendent, have expressed opposition to the Sanford voucher plan. Said one headmaster, "'We will only take students on grade level without discipline problems'," Tenenbaum reported. Another told her, "'We're not a remedial school. We won't take failing students'."
"But public schools have our doors open to all students," she declared. "We don't say, 'Don't come if you're not on grade level or failing'."
In the forum's question-and-answer session, one Anderson County man observed that 40 years ago, when civil rights activists came to South Carolina to fight for voting rights, open housing and other rights, "They were called 'outside agitators.' Why are corporate interests from outside South Carolina suddenly so interested in us?"
"If it can work here..." Maguire began, but turned to an example from the city of Clemson. "The Winn-Dixie store is dying in Clemson because the Bi-Lo store moved in," she said, without a hint of irony. "If local districts have a management problem, then they need to evaluate what they're doing."
Another questioner asked for Maguire's assessment of the impact that tax credits will have on the state's General Fund, and subsequently on all agencies and programs supplied by the General Fund. Amazingly, Maguire responded that there would be no impact on the General Fund or on state agencies.
Moderator Stuart Sprague restated the question for Maguire: What did she think would be the impact of tax credits on the General Fund -- which would lose revenues to tax credits -- and the impact to state agencies and programs -- whose budgets will be reduced because of lower revenues? But Maguire reiterated that there would be no impact, leading several in the audience to ask aloud if she had read the bill text.
Sprague invited Tenenbaum to respond instead. "First, if these people can win the voucher fight in South Carolina, they're going to take this plan to other states. That's why they've spent about $4 million to get it passed already," she said. "Second, of course this is going to negatively impact all the programs funded by the state."
Returning to the study commissioned last year by voucher proponents and authored by Cotton Lindsay of Clemson University, Tenenbaum said, "I'm really, really embarrassed for Clemson and I know many of you are too. You'd have to close a whole school to save any money under this voucher plan, and that's not how it's going to happen. When one or two children leave a public school, that school's overhead costs remain fixed. You still have the cost of the building, the utilities, the maintenance, the personnel and all the rest."
Another questioner, who identified herself as a teacher, suggested, "They call this 'Put Parents in Charge', but where I teach, parents are definitely in charge already. They come and talk to me a lot." She asked how many private schools provide transportation to their students and how low-achieving students would be expected "to get to these so-called better schools"?
In her response, Tenenbaum noted that few, if any, private schools provide transportation, and she suggested that this is part of private school administrators' opposition to the bill. "A lot of headmasters tell me they don't want to become less private, parochial schools don't want to become less parochial," she said. "I support really good private schools but this is bad policy for South Carolina when we have a plan and are making progress."
For her part, Maguire mentioned a friend who has five children "and just went through a really bad divorce, and now she has no school choice because she can't afford it." Sanford's voucher plan would help the woman, she said.
TEACHER 'SALARY INCREASE' RHETORIC MISLEADING
While budget writers on the House Ways and Means Committee have touted salary increases for teachers in the proposed 2005-06 budget, The SCEA has confirmed that the reality of these so-called increases may prove disappointing to educators.
As reported in The SCEA Dateline on February 23, the proposed budget includes across-the-board pay raises of up to 10 percent for State Law Enforcement Division agents and the Highway Patrol, and a four-percent across-the-board increase for state employees, but no across-the-board increase for educators.
But widely-reported comments by Ways and Means Committee and an email from Chairman Bobby Harrell on February 28 suggests that educators will find substantive increases in their base salaries beginning in July. Harrell's email "to the wonderful teachers of South Carolina" reads, in part, "I have good news to report to you... Funding was included to increase teacher salaries so that they are still at $300 above the Southeastern average."
Indeed, Proviso 1A.18 of the budget draft reads, "For the current school year the Southeastern average teacher salary is projected to be $42,437. It is the INTENT [emphasis added] of the General Assembly to exceed the Southeastern average teacher salary as projected by $300. The General Assembly REMAINS DESIROUS [emphasis added] of raising the average teacher salary in South Carolina through incremental increases over the next few years so as to make such equivalent to the national average teacher salary."
After combing through available data and consulting with the Department of Education's Finance and Operations Office, The SCEA has confirmed that the budget draft appears to increase each step on the standard salary scale by an average 1.6 percent, which represents a cost-of-living adjustment.
Educators on steps zero (first-year teachers) through twenty-one (twenty-second year teachers) move a step on the schedule each year. Because the schedule includes no steps above step 22, those educators with more than 22 years of experience receive no additional salary from step movement; educators with more than 22 years' experience only receive additional salary if the legislature (a) funds a cost-of-living adjustment to the top step of the salary schedule or (b) implements an across-the-board salary increase for educators.
This means that educators who move up a step will gain additional salary from the step movement and the additional 1.6 percent in cost-of-living adjustment. Educators already at the top step will receive only the 1.6 percent cost-of-living adjustment. If these educators receive any salary increase above the cost-of-living adjustment, it will come from local districts.
The SCEA continues to advocate for fair compensation for all educators and school district employees, including all certified and non-certified personnel. Additionally, we ask the legislature to report honestly the average base contract salary for educators in South Carolina, as many lawmakers are unaware that the calculation of this average teacher salary in South Carolina includes stipends paid to national board certified teachers and the bonuses paid to teacher specialists, not just the base contract salaries of all educators. The result of these inclusions is an artifically-inflated average.
Finally, The SCEA continues to define 'salary increase' as an across-the-board percentage of increase for all educators, including those on the standard salary schedule and those with more than 22 years' experience and are held at the last step on the schedule. The SCEA does not define a salary increase to include step movement, since step movement merely reflects a realignment of placement based on experience.
DATELINE MARCH 8, 2005
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit www.thescea.org.
WALKER SUBCOMMITTEE HALTS UNIFORM PUNISHMENT BILL
A bill proposed by Rep. Ted Pitts of Lexington to mandate school uniforms in low-performing schools was blocked by the House K-12 Education Subcommittee today when subcommittee members and education advocates agreed it was punitive and usurped local board authority.
Subcommittee Chair Bob Walker of Landrum, who served for nine years on a school board in Spartanburg County before being elected to the House, advised, "I have a problem with us mandating things, even in failing schools." He read the conclusion of a study of schools where uniforms had been adopted, noting that "results remain anecdotal and unproven."
Pitts, a two-term representative, said he developed the idea while attending a National Guard training in San Antonio, Texas, last summer. Visiting a Wal-Mart there, he found parents buying school uniforms for the coming school year, he said. He subsequently researched the topic using the Google search engine on the Internet and found a study from Long Beach, California, among others, which touted school uniforms as an effective solution to discipline problems.
Under current law, local boards of education have the prerogative to adopt dress codes appropriate to their needs, including school uniforms. Mike Fanning, executive director of the Olde English Education Consortium in Rock Hill, and Scott Price of the S.C. School Boards Association told the subcommittee that many districts and schools have already adopted school uniforms voluntarily, in many cases at the behest of parents in their communities. But Pitts's bill would mandate uniforms in schools that scored 'below basic' or 'unsatisfactory' for two consecutive years, regardless of the local board's position on the issue.
Sandy Smith, the subcommittee's administrative staff assistant, reported that 134 schools would be affected: 49 elementary, 65 middle and 30 high schools. That number would represent more than 10 percent of the state's 1,100 public schools.
Only after the school has scored 'average' or better for two consecutive years could the local boards return to their own choice of dress code, under Pitts's proposal.
Rep. Ken Clark of Lexington, who said he supports the concept of school uniforms, asked, "If it's a really good idea, why not adopt it in all the school districts?" He also questioned the "stop and start" nature of the proposal.
"I want to focus on struggling schools," Pitts answered.
Rep. Mike Anthony of Union said he was open to the idea but needed to hear more input from stakeholders. "Once we mandate it from here, it opens up a whole can of worms," he said.
Price, of the School Boards Association, advised the committee that nothing stopped a board from exercising the option presently, but that Pitts's measure might cause some schools to rethink their choice to voluntarily adopt uniforms, and it would serve as a disincentive to those still considering it. Those schools might be tainted by the "stigma of failing schools," he suggested.
"I'm not worried about the way someone feels about how they're perceived," Pitts argued. "I'm trying to do something different and not protect the status quo."
In its testimony opposing the measure as a punitive mandate, The SCEA proposed that Pitts's bill be stripped and amended to require the Education Oversight Commission to report by December 31 its study of schools in South Carolina where uniforms have adopted voluntarily. That report would be made available to all local school boards, arming locally-elected leaders with the best in-state data on which to make the best choices for their schools and communities.
Walker approved of the suggestion and reiterated his positions against adopting unnecessary mandates, and against usurping the authority of local school boards. "Under your idea, they don't have an 'out'," he declared to Pitts.
"Yes, they do -- they can score average or better for two consecutive years," Pitts shot back.
"That's not an 'out'," Walker said.
Walker's dogged defense drew an admission from Pitts: "I agree that the state needs to get out of the business of mandating things it can't provide for. And I support our boards and want them to have all the authority they can have," he said. "This is one small thing that I think could make the difference."
Anthony moved to table the adjourn debate on Pitts's proposal until a future meeting, and the motion passed.
Both in its testimony and following the meeting, The SCEA expressed its appreciation to Walker for his support of local school boards and their authority in this matter, and for his opposition to punitive mandates of this sort. The association urges its members and others to express their appreciation personally to the chairman at REW@scstatehouse.net.
DATELINE MARCH 16, 2005
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit www.thescea.org.
HOUSE ADOPTS BUDGET
The House adopted its budget draft, which includes full funding of the Education Finance Act, yesterday with a unanimous vote on second reading, and again on third reading this morning.
The budget includes a base student cost of $2,290, as directed by the Board of Economic Advisors, and a cost of living adjustment of 1.6 percent for active educators. Those educators with fewer than 22 years' experience also won step movement on the salary schedule.
Rep. Ken Kennedy of Greeleyville sought an amendment guaranteeing a four percent across-the-board salary increase, but after lengthy and animated debate his amendment was tabled on a voice vote, rather than a recorded roll call vote, so there is no record of how members voted. Kennedy's amendment would have brought educators in line with other state employees, who received an across-the-board four percent increase in the budget. State Law Enforcement Division agents and State Highway Patrol officers received a 10 percent increase in salary.
Rep. Walt McLeod of Newberry sought to undo Governor Mark Sanford's "backpacking" of school resource officers, and to guarantee that the resource officer program is funded. But House Ways and Means Chairman Bobby Harrell of Charleston led the effort to table McLeod's amendment. It was tabled by a voice vote rather than a recorded roll call vote, so there is no record of how members voted.
Rep. James Smith of Columbia sought two amendments that would restore a local district's obligation to contribute funds toward public education. Harrell led the effort to table the first amendment by a vote of 63-45, then blocked Smith's attempt to introduce the second amendment.
A late amendment by Rep. Doug Smith of Spartanburg will allow administrators "maximum flexibility" to use $315 million in EFA funds for teacher compensation. Merit pay and "special rewards" would be decided by principals, Doug Smith explained. His amendment was approved on a voice vote rather than a recorded roll call vote, so there is no record of how members voted.
TOWNSEND EXPOSES VOUCHER PLAN AS TAX BILL
Using a extensive and detailed PowerPoint presentation, Rep. Ronnie Townsend of Anderson advised constituents last Thursday that a trio of bills, each known as "Put Parents in Charge," are tax cut bills masquerading as education bills. The beneficiaries of the cuts would be South Carolina's wealthiest residents and corporate entities who would choose to support private and parochial education. But the plan would harm every state agency and institution supported by the state's treasury, since potential revenues would be diverted to ideological causes.
Townsend is chairman of the House Education Committee and has vocally opposed the tax-cut-and-voucher scheme promoted by Governor Mark Sanford and proposed by Rep. Doug Smith of Spartanburg. The SCEA appreciates Townsend's adamant opposition to the voucher schemes and urges members to communicate their support to him at HED@scstatehouse.net.
DATELINE MARCH 23, 2005
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit www.thescea.org.
RETIRED EDUCATORS PARTICIPATE IN THE SCEA LOBBY DAY
Three former educators representing The SCEA-Retired met with their Senators today as part of The SCEA's first of three scheduled Lobby Days for the session. The SCEA-R Vice President Andrena Taylor of Columbia was joined by Janet Agnew and Catherine Dedmon of Spartanburg in attending a meeting of the Senate Education Committee this morning, then meeting privately with members of their counties' Senate delegations. High on their agenda were restoration of State Health Plan benefits to active and retired educators, and opposition to Governor Mark Sanford's voucher-and-tax-credit plan.
During the afternoon's Senate session, the trio and The SCEA President Sheila C. Gallagher watched proceedings from the Senate gallery and were recognized by Sen. Kay Patterson of Columbia and Sen. Hugh Leatherman of Florence.
The SCEA has scheduled three Lobby Days to coincide with the spring breaks of school districts across the state. Some districts in the Upstate scheduled their break this week, but most will take breaks during the next two weeks. In addition to today's visit, educators have been invited to visit the Capitol on March 30 and April 6, when both chambers will be in session.
As the Senate convened this afternoon, a handful of African-American ministers organized by Sanford and South Carolinians for Responsible Government held a press conference to voice their support for Sanford's plan. Notably absent was the Reverend Joe Darby of Charleston, who was invited to participate in the organization but declined via a well-circulated letter outlining his opposition to the bill.
For the benefit of those regular The SCEA Dateline recipients unfamiliar with Darby, his letter to the organizers of Clergy for Educational Options is forwarded below:
"Dear Reverend Davis, "Thank you for your e-mail and for the invitation to join you for lunch and to meet with the Governor. I won't make the lunch because I have a noon Bible Study on Thursdays (at my church in Charleston). I've also already had ample opportunity to sit with, dine with, chat with and share e-mails with Governor Mark. We share little political common ground, but I still consider him to be a friend, and he knows my views on education. "I did take the time to review your very well done brochure, and I regret to say that I don't think that we share common ground on the issue of education. Your brochure says, 'While CEO does not believe that school choice is the one and only answer to the African American educational crisis, we do believe that equal education opportunity is a necessary ingredient to empowering parents and children within the system of public education.'
"That broad and carefully benign statement, coupled with your appeal to pastors who have a school or after school program or would like to start one, and your apparent access to the present 'legislative leadership,' which has a poor track record of outreach to or respect for the African-American community, bothers me. It leaves me with the impression that your organization may be designed to solicit African-American clergy support for the 'Putting Parents in Charge' legislation. If I'm wrong, then I'd appreciate your telling me so. If I'm right, then allow me, as Ephesians 4:14,15 says, to 'speak the truth in love.'
"I regard efforts to provide tuition tax credits and scholarships to parents of modest means to finance either home schooling their children or putting them in private schools to be the worst idea to come along in South Carolina for a very long time for a number of reasons:
1. The tax credits are 'after the fact,' and many poor parents would not be able to pay the tuition up front and then wait for the refund.
2. Most private schools require more than tuition for the proper adjustment of students, and many students going into those schools are labeled before they hit the doorstep.
3. Business and individuals allowed to offer 'tuition scholarships' will be allowed to write them off on their state taxes. Coupled with the tax credits, that seriously erodes funding for already underfunded public schools.
4. Unlike public schools, private schools can pick and choose who they will and will not accept, opening the door for the 'best and brightest' to be pulled away from public schools and to create poorer schools filled with ill prepared and supported students - the equivalent of 'educational ghettos.'
5. Private schools are unregulated and do not have to meet the same state standards of accountability as public schools, so we would have no way of knowing objectively if our children are really learning or being treated fairly.
6. In many poor and small counties, parents would be left with the choice of a single private school or a single public school. In one of those counties, black children attending the private school, which was established to fight desegregation, would still have to walk past a waving Confederate Flag to go to school.
7. South Carolina has never equitably funded public schools in our state, and is presently fighting a court battle to keep from doing so. Many who support 'Putting Parents in Charge' talk about how much money has been poured into public education. A lot of that money was poured into correcting the inequities of a 'separate but equal' school system, and a lot of what is still spent goes to that same purpose. I refuse to write off schools that have never been given the chance to compete on a level playing field, and find it hypocritical that those who have refused to equitably fund our schools decide to try 'something new' and blithely calling it 'Putting Parents in Charge' to disguise a legislative 'wolf in sheep's clothing.'
"Let me also offer a few thoughts that don't fit into numbered points easily. 'Putting Parents in Charge' means giving parents a real choice between good public and private schools, and the present legislative initiative doesn't do that. A mother who has to leave Jasper County at dawn to clean hotel rooms for minimum wage in Hilton Head because there are no jobs locally and who returns home too late to help her child with homework is not 'In Charge.' Our state should be about the business of developing her community and her public schools so that she can truly be 'in charge' and have a true 'choice.'
"I'm also bothered that the present initiative sounds chillingly like something from the sixties. When South Carolina made its last-ditch effort to block school desegregation, it employed two strategies. One of those was called 'freedom of choice,' which allowed parents to send their children to any public school that they pleased to slow down desegregation. The other, which was ultimately outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court, allowed parents to have tax credits and scholarships to send their children to all white private schools created with the expressed purpose of maintaining segregation. Those private schools, many of which now chase the dollars that the present legislation would offer, served to set public education back by decades in South Carolina, and our Governor now wants to abandon those public schools instead of fixing them.
"I'm also bothered by the vague nature of your appeal to black clergy who 'either have a school or after school program or would like to start one.' It leaves the implication, given the rest of what's stated in your brochure, that those who might be willing to either embrace 'Put Parents in Charge' or look the other way while it's pressed might get a few governmental bucks to start their own schools.
"We're still reeling from a national election when some African-American clergy got so caught up in chasing politicians who railed against same-sex marriage that they forgot Jesus' mandate to love others as we love ourselves and elected politicians whose public policies harm the poor and people of color. Many of those clergy were also, coincidentally, the recipients of federal 'faith based' governmental funds. I'm sure that you would agree with me that the church and its clergy should never be 'for sale to the highest bidder.' We badly need to recover the 'self help' model that enabled our ancestors in the faith to speak truth to power without reservation or financial concern, and we cannot sell out our congregations and communities for the proverbial thirty pieces of silver.
"We also need to be careful not to set ourselves up for failure by operating 'on a shoestring.' The Charleston School District approved one charter school for predominately black children that went belly up because they tried to operate on a shoestring with minimal planning, and the principal is now under indictment for embezzlement for trying to use public fund to fill in gaps that should not have existed. I still believe that the primary benefactors of 'Put Parents in Charge' will be affluent parents and schools that were established to maintain segregation.
"I hope that your meeting has the right motives, hope that I've misread your efforts, and hope that you and other black clergy of like mind will ultimately consider and follow the model of churches like Reid Chapel AME in Columbia. Reid Chapel operates a Day Care, Kindergarten and Elementary School, all of which have waiting lists. My sons went to the V.V. Reid Day Care and Kindergarten, as did the children of those ranging from doctors to janitors, who 'chose' to pay the tuition. Reid Chapel has built up a reputation for success without taking one red cent of state or federal money. I consider that to be evidence of the Grace of God. When we go beyond political games and rely on that Grace, as our ancestors did in times of slavery and Jim Crow segregation, then we won't need to curry favor with the Governor or the legislative leadership. We can do the work ourselves, and say with John Newton, 'Grace hath brought me safe thus far, and grace will lead me on.'
"Thanks again for your invitation and for the opportunity for dialogue. Please be aware that I'm forwarding your invitation and my response to other clergy and concerned citizens on my e-mail list - and asking that they forward it as they see fit - to further the dialogue."
"Be blessed,
Joe Darby
Morris Brown AME Church
Charleston, SC
ED FIRST TOWN MEETING AT LANDER UNIVERSITY TONIGHT
S.C. Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum will offer keynote remarks this evening at the Cultural Center Auditorium at Lander University in Greenwood at 6:30 p.m. The event is co-sponsored by the Western Piedmont Education Consortium, a collaboration of six school districts in Abbeville, Clinton, Edgefield, Greenwood, Laurens, McCormick, Newberry, Ninety Six, Saluda and Ware Shoals, and Education First, a statewide coalition of 85 local, state and national organizations.
The purpose of the meeting is to inform the public on the need for adequacy and equity in education funding, said Ray Wilson, executive director of the Western Piedmont Education Consortium. "We will present facts about how state funding of public education has diminished in recent years for all our schools and how even worse, this impacts our poorest school districts. It will also point to what citizens can do to change things."
The evening's program will include a presentation by one of the plaintiffs' attorneys in Abbeville v. South Carolina, the suit brought by rural school districts on the issue of funding equity in poor schools.
"Our purpose is to educate the public about what we need to do to restore public education as top priority in our state budget and how funding for our poorer districts must be improved," Wilson said. "After all, we are truly one state. How well all of our schools are doing is in everyone's interest."
DATELINE MARCH 29, 2005
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit www.thescea.org.
HINSON SUBCMTE HEARS SANFORD VOUCHERS WEDNESDAY
The House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Economic Development, Capital Improvement and Other Taxes, chaired by Rep. Shirley Hinson of Goose Creek, will convene on Wednesday to consider H 3652, the third version of the voucher bill promoted by Governor Mark Sanford and sponsored by Rep. Doug Smith of Spartanburg. Since the Hinson subcommittee does not intend to take public testimony on the bill on Wednesday, the meeting likely will serve as a promotional event for the bill, offering Smith a lengthy opportunity to characterize his bill without opposition.
According to the notice of the meeting, the Hinson subcommittee will schedule a public hearing on the bill at a later date.
The bill's placement in Hinson's subcommittee is odd from one perspective: The proposal's cornerstone is a credit against state income taxes, suggesting that its natural home would be the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Sales and Income Tax, chaired by Rep. Lanny Littlejohn of Pacolet.
But viewed from a different angle, it makes perfect sense: Sending the bill to the Hinson subcommittee almost guarantees its safe passage, since Hinson is a co-sponsor of H 3652. Also, although testimony against the bill was offered during last year's public hearing on the bill by two of her Berkeley County constituents, including a member of the local school board, it was Hinson who moved to adopt the Sanford voucher plan [H 4908, The SCEA Dateline, April 20, 2004].
Hinson is no stranger to educators, in many respects. In the 2004 legislative session, she killed a proposal to study the state's ability and willingness to pay salaries at the southeastern average, declaring that such a study's results would only incense educators when there are "enough problems".
"We know we're not paying the southeastern average and we haven't got any money to give any raises," Hinson said [The SCEA Dateline, January 15, 2004].
Just last month, she attempted to attach an amendment to the House budget bill that would block educators' ability to communicate with lawmakers via email about pending legislation. Specifically, Hinson's amendment would require school boards to adopt new policies curtailing the spread of information on pending legislation and local referenda and "preventing educators from using computers to communicate with politicians from school," she explained [The SCEA Dateline, February 24, 2005].
Rounding out the Hinson subcommittee are Rep. Chip Limehouse of Charleston, Rep. Jim McGee of Florence, Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter of Orangeburg and Rep. Alex Harvin of Manning.
The Hinson subcommittee will convene at 3 p.m. in Blatt 521.
DATELINE MARCH 30, 2005
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit www.thescea.org.
HINSON GRANTS 90-MINUTE COMMERCIAL TO VOUCHER PLAN
A meeting of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Economic Development, Capital Improvement and Other Taxes that was not intended to be a public hearing turned into a 90-minute promotion of Governor Mark Sanford's voucher plan, featuring an out-of-state consultant who has pushed voucher plans in several other states.
In other "work sessions" of subcommittees, the chief sponsors or committee staff offer a section-by-section explanation of proposed legislation. But for today's non-public-hearing, subcommittee staff was quiet while Chair Shirley Hinson of Goose Creek allowed Eric O'Keefe, president of the Legislative Education Active Drive (LEAD) of Glenview, Illinois, and Larry Marchant of South Carolinians for Responsible Government to walk the subcommittee through the bill. Co-sponsor Lewis Vaughn of Greenville offered only opening remarks, and the bill's chief sponsor, Rep. Doug Smith of Spartanburg, attended for only part of the meeting and offered closing remarks at its end.
More than 50 members of The SCEA participated in the second of three lobby days sponsored by The SCEA at the State House, and many of them witnessed Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter of Orangeburg lead the critical questioning of O'Keefe and Marchant. But even Rep. Jim McGee of Florence, Rep. Chip Limehouse of Charleston and Rep. Alex Harvin of Manning offered questions or comments, with Hinson herself giving suggestions for improvement to the bill.
In his opening remarks, Vaughn was pleased that the bill was finally scheduled for consideration. "I've been a supporter of school choice my entire career here. When I came here in 1988, most people wouldn't listen to me -- they'd run the other way," he said.
Then Marchant introduced O'Keefe, president of LEAD, the national pro-voucher organization based near Chicago. O'Keefe has also served in leadership roles in organizations called U.S. Term Limits and Americans for Limited Terms, and has authored studies for the right-wing Cato Institute of Washington, D.C., including some promoted by the Heartland Institute of Chicago. Under questioning from Cobb-Hunter, O'Keefe explained that he is a business consultant who serves as president of LEAD, a four-year-old organization that has pursued various forms of voucher proposals in "a half-dozen" other states.
O'Keefe said the bill's purpose is to promote parental control in education. "Parental control of education correlates to higher student performance," he said. Without identifying a particular source, he said, "Research has shown that when parents have more choices, student performance improves and public schools tend to treat parents more as customers."
In promoting vouchers and tax credits as the solution to perceived problems in public education, O'Keefe said, "Are folks [in education] focusing more on getting money from the state legislature or does their money come from pleasing parents?"
Noting that the plan promoted by Sanford and sponsored by Smith is "frankly imitated from Arizona, Florida and Virginia," O'Keefe said it contained the best practices of each state's programs, while skirting the legal and ethical questions uncovered by those states' programs. "What Doug ended up crafting here is very cautious to the finances of the state," he suggested. To offer one example, he said, students currently enrolled in private and parochial schools "are eligible only after the first two years of the program."
But O'Keefe took a brand-new approach in selling the bill as a "self-funding" proposal, a pitch that hasn't been heard before at the legislature. "It will reduce revenue coming into the state," O'Keefe admitted, "but it will reduce expenditure on public schools more. Doug and Governor Sanford wanted to design a program that's self-funding."
Opening a line of sharp questioning from Cobb-Hunter, O'Keefe said that a study of the proposal's cost savings "involved thousands of hours of work by Clemson's economics department."
"Did Clemson do the study or was it commissioned by a private entity?" Cobb-Hunter asked, noting that television commercials now airing feature former Sanford advisor Barbara Nielsen referring to a "Clemson study."
"The study went through the formal process at Clemson," O'Keefe answered. "It was privately contracted by the South Carolina Policy Council and LEAD."
When O'Keefe continued to use Clemson's name later in his presentation, rather than the name of the study's author, Cotton Lindsey, Cobb-Hunter dug deeper, asking O'Keefe to call it the "Policy Council study." O'Keefe advised the representative, "We signed an agreement with Clemson University and paid a premium to get a Clemson University study."
Hinson briefly called on Dr. Bill Gillespie, the state's chief economist, to describe progress being made on a "cost-savings" statement being drafted by his office. Gillespie was hesitant to offer details. "The numbers are very controversial and we cannot ever be sure," he said.
Gillespie then revealed that state resources and personnel are being used at the request of voucher proponents in the legislature to conduct research intended to support the bill. The Board of Economic Advisors is "required to tell you the state's revenue impact, and we're also required to give you an estimate of the local revenue impact. But we're not required in the code to give you a cost-savings impact," he said. "We're doing it at the request of the subcommittee."
His report -- which has taken "about six months" of time by his personnel -- is nearly finished. "We will show you how you can reduce appropriations and what we reasonably expect school districts to save," he added.
Returning to the podium, O'Keefe again admitted that "the credit will be a new reduction in revenue," since about 50,000 students who are currently educated in private or parochial schools aren't supported with state dollars and do not cost the General Fund presently through an income tax credit. Once those students' parents begin taking the credit, the General Fund balance will shrink.
Cobb-Hunter asked O'Keefe to identify the role of the State Department of Education in administering the new program, since the voucher plan is being touted as a means of improving public education in South Carolina. She found no reference to the department, she said.
"The Department of Education isn't referenced and is given no new authority in this bill," O'Keefe told her.
"But if this is about education, surely there will be a role for the Department of Education?" she asked again.
"This bill is a tax bill that offers a deal to taxpayers," O'Keefe began, but Cobb-Hunter interrupted. "You've answered my question then. This is being sold as an education bill, but it's a bill about taxes, not education," she said.
"It can be a tax credit bill that's about education," O'Keefe countered.
Cobb-Hunter asked whether the Department of Revenue -- the agency that will administer the voucher-and-tax-credit plan -- would have any additional costs associated with its administration. "Will they need to hire additional staff? Someone's got to create these forms, these receipts -- are those hidden costs?"
O'Keefe said administrators have advised him the bill wouldn't cause "substantial" problems.
"But did you ask them whether they could handle this with their existing personnel?" Cobb-Hunter pressed.
"We did not ask your specific question," O'Keefe answered.
Moving specifically to the topic of vouchers, O'Keefe used the word 'scholarships,' which is also used in the bill to refer to vouchers. Vouchers will be given by "scholarship-granting organizations," or SGOs, which don't yet exist under South Carolina law. "But any 501-c(3) can set one up quickly by doing some paperwork," O'Keefe suggested.
Hinson asked whether any analysis had been conducted of SGOs currently existing in other states. O'Keefe told her that Florida has four, Arizona has 48 and Pennsylvania has more than 150. "I think we'd see hundreds [in South Carolina] because a church could set one up, a community could set one up," he said.
Wading into the discussion admittedly on behalf of wealthier constituents in Charleston, Limehouse asked O'Keefe why there was an income cap in the bill. O'Keefe responded, "Our objective was to come out of this will universal school choice."
Setting the income cap for tax-credit and voucher eligibility at $75,000 excluded only about four and a half percent of the state's taxpayers, O'Keefe argued. Limehouse opined that those few taxpayers must live in his district, since the majority of calls and emails to his office were coming from taxpayers angry at being excluded.
"It seems patently unfair to exclude a parent who makes $76,000," Limehouse said.
"Fairness to taxpayers can be argued," O'Keefe agreed. "But the tax code isn't designed to be fair to everyone; it's designed to raise revenue."
Moving now to studies of "school choice" effectiveness, O'Keefe noted that the best data came from the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, school system since it was more concentrated, with 15,000 students receiving vouchers and 100,000 students attending public schools. Florida has more voucher recipients -- about 40,000 receiving vouchers through three choice programs -- but its recipients are evenly distributed across the state, he explained.
As O'Keefe glossed over the perceived effectiveness of the voucher programs, Limehouse stopped him and asked for concrete data: "Give me a test score, an SAT score, something I can use," Limehouse said.
O'Keefe offered one: Students receiving vouchers graduate at a 25 percent higher rate than those attending public schools.
But McGee asked whether the Milwaukee program was a tax credit program or a voucher program. "It's a voucher program," O'Keefe said.
"Then why are we talking about tax credits and not vouchers," McGee asked.
"This could get into a..." O'Keefe began, but then shifted gears. "Well, a tax credit has a cleaner legal history in South Carolina. The court record holds that tax credit money isn't government money because it never passes through state hands. A voucher is a single-payer system; the state provides it. But SGOs can compete. And voucher are vulnerable to scamming. This program isn't vulnerable to that. I suppose it would happen once or twice, but it's not plausible."
"But you could have fraud -- that's possible, right?" McGee asked.
"It is, but putting bonding in the bill will address that," O'Keefe suggested.
Cobb-Hunter seized on the issue of widespread, well-documented fraud in Florida's voucher programs but focused her questions on donations to SGOs. "Is there no limit on how much a donor can give to an SGO? Nothing in the bill that sets a dollar limit?"
"No, but an SGO has to spend its money within a year or it reverts to the state," O'Keefe said.
As a member of the budget-writing House Ways and Means Committee, Cobb-Hunter said she was "very concerned" about the bill's impact on the General Fund. She used the example of BMW, a major corporation with a location in Spartanburg County, to illustrate her concern. "If BMW wanted to donate $200,000 to an SGO and take a credit against its taxes, nothing prevents it. But that's $200,000 that the General Fund will be short, isn't that right?"
While Cobb-Hunter sought a yes-or-no answer, O'Keefe dodged it. "The donation to an SGO triggers a transaction that saves the state money," he said. "Upfront, the state doesn't get $200,000 that it would have. People can claim that the state will continue to spend the same amount of money, but it doesn't seem plausible."
"What about this: If we have 46 SGOs, will we have 46 different sets of criteria?" Cobb-Hunter asked.
"The eligibility of students for the tax credit is the same," he answered. "It's like with college aid, the definition of eligibility follows the student. But SGOs can issue their own criteria for giving scholarships."
"Are you comfortable that the language for SGOs is enough for fiscal accountability? Will it eliminate abuses?" she asked.
"Yes, the bonding section does that," he answered.
Then Hinson added an unexpected twist: "Well, there may be an amendment to cap corporate donations so they can't give their entire tax liability to SGOs," she said. "That would hurt the state."
The stunning admission from Hinson -- who has demonstrated support for Sanford's voucher plan to date -- grew gasps.
Marchant returned briefly to the podium to advise Hinson and others, helpfully, "We are entertaining amendments."
Hinson asked O'Keefe what might happen if an SGO was not available to poor children in some areas of the state.
"I hope we'll see some community action to form SGOs throughout the state" during the phase-in period over the next few years, he said. "It isn't mandated but it is permitted."
"But we can't wait two years," Hinson lamented. "I think the public would crucify us if that happened." She suggested amending the bill to create a statewide SGO, "to ensure that there was at least one for poor communities."
O'Keefe suggested adding another incentive to businesses who contribute to SGOs serving poorer communities. Marchant picked up on the idea, suggesting "more tax credit for those corporations who create SGOs for critical needs areas."
"The non-poor don't need an SGO," O'Keefe agreed. "The very purpose of the bill is to help the poor."
The exchange was too much for Cobb-Hunter to bear. She declared, "Madame Chair, here's a radical idea: What if we gave this same kind of tax credit to corporations who gave this same money to public schools?" Her idea drew loud and sustained applause from the more than 150 people gathered in the room, the only instance of applause during the meeting.
Attempting to nail down a straight answer on how school districts would save money because of the voucher plan, Cobb-Hunter tried again but failed. "Tell me how a school district is going to save money when students leave their schools when they still have utilities to pay, the textbooks that they buy in bulk, all those fixed costs?"
"The Clemson economics department was very creative in looking at fixed costs," O'Keefe began, but Cobb-Hunter interrupted to clarify again the relationship between Clemson University and the study commissioned by the S.C. Policy Council and LEAD. O'Keefe never delivered the straight answer she sought.
Cobb-Hunter asked a final question: How does the bill help poor children in districts or counties where there is only one school? She used the example of a single mother of three in Allendale County who travels in early mornings by bus to Hilton Head "to clean motel rooms. The local private academies don't want my kids. How does this help me?"
And this -- after spending 90 minutes promoting a bill that he said alternately was designed to help the poor, to improve student performance, or to increase parental control in education -- was O'Keefe's answer.
"Worst case, nothing changes. But the potential to compete has an impact, so at least you have the potential. So in the worst case scenario, that parent isn't worse off, and the district isn't worse off."
.
Drawing closure to her meeting, Hinson asked finally, "What's in place in the bill to provide accountability in private schools?
"There's no evidence that independent [a euphemism for private, parochial or home schools] schools need the helping hand of the legislature to satisfy parents," O'Keefe said. "Some schools put religion or character-building ahead of academics, and you get into thorny issues if you infringe on their ability to satisfy parents."
Hinson said the subcommittee will schedule a public hearing, perhaps as early as next week. Although today's meeting constituted a feature-length commercial for the bill, the public hearing won't allow for equal time. Proponents and opponents of the voucher plan who sign up will likely be given five minutes each to speak on the bill, Hinson said.
"This legislation is shaping the future of our state and we want to hear from everyone," she announced. "It's a long time coming."
DATELINE MARCH 31, 2005
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit www.thescea.org.
PUBLIC HEARING ON VOUCHERS SET, ALREADY BOOKED
Notice of a public hearing on Governor Mark Sanford's voucher proposal was given late this morning, and by early afternoon, all of the slots allowed by Rep. Shirley Hinson to proponents and opponents of the bill were filled. The hearing is scheduled Wednesday, April 6 at 3 p.m. in the Blatt Building.
Hinson, chair of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Economic Development, Capital Improvement and Other Taxes gave proponents from South Carolinians for Responsible Government and the Legislative Education Action Drive (LEAD) of Chicago a 90-minute opportunity to sell the plan on Wednesday. But representatives of organizations that oppose the bill will only have five minutes each.
Sixteen five-minute slots have been allowed for opponents, and proponents will have another sixteen five-minute slots.
[For those keeping count, this will total almost three hours of time (2:50) allotted to proponents of the bill, and only 80 minutes of time for opponents, cumulatively.]
Hinson has allotted 20 minutes to the Board of Economic Advisors at the public hearing, in hopes that the BEA's study on "cost savings" will be ready by that date. Dr. Bill Gillespie, the state's chief economist, revealed yesterday that state resources and personnel are being used by Hinson and other pro-voucher members of the subcommittee to conduct research specifically designed to support the bill. Gillespie said his staff has worked on this research for the past six months, at pro-voucher legislators' request.
In case Gillespie's report is not finished by Wednesday, according to Ways and Means staff, the additional time will be divided between proponents and opponents.
Hinson has determined that the public hearing on April 6 will not last longer than three hours, but Hinson can choose to open a second hearing at a later date. Those who would like for voucher opponents to have equal time to speak against the Sanford plan can contact Hinson at 803-734-2951 (legislative office in Columbia) or 843-572-1722 (home), or email her at HinsonS@scstatehouse.net and ask for equal time.
