Here’s how these endorsement interviews relate to what you read about in today’s news:
Did you read today about how the state Ethics Commission has said SCRG — the group pushing tax credits for private school parents — has to disclose its donors as it spends to influence an election in the last 45 days? (Only the same Ethics Commission won’t investigate, unless it gets a really, seriously formal complaint in addition to "all the telephone calls and e-mails we’ve gotten." Are we messed up around here or not?)
Well, that’s the very election I’m doing detailed interviews on — and sharing the results with you — both here and here.
The issue in the case of today’s story is that everyone believes SCRG is funded by a bunch of rich out-of-state ideologues who want to force their pet theories on South Carolinians by funding stealth organizations with "South Carolina" in their titles. Everyone believes, but no one but the insiders know.
The groups scoffs at the idea that it is fundamentally supported by out of state money — just as it steadfastly refuses to name its donors in order to prove otherwise.
There’s a lot at stake here — not least the issue of whether South Carolinians will decide what we want to do, instead of being governed by puppets.
Related Posts
Brad,
Isn’t your lack of objectivity on this matter showing when you continually harp on the SCRG as rich, out-of-state (read: Yankees), trying to push “tax credits for private school parents”?
By constantly attempting to paint the SCRG as some type of evil force, your arguments lose much of their power to persuade.
Why not debate the merits of the SCRG’s proposals versus simply demonizing the group itself? Could it be that trying to defend the status quo of the current SC education monopoly is much more difficult to do?
The link to the SCRG website describes a very different objective than simply “tax cuts for private school parents”. I see
the following:
– Children who are zoned for a failing school and whose family income is no more than 200% of the federal poverty level are eligible for a scholarship up to $4500 to help them find a school that better suits their individual needs.
[ What’s your alternative, Brad? Throw
MORE money at failing schools?
How much? and for how long before we
admit failure? ]
– All special needs students are eligible for either a scholarship or a state income tax credit up to 75% of what the state currently spends on their particular disability.
[ What’s your alternative, Brad? Hire
MORE edu-bureaucrats to develop all
sorts of policies and procedures? ]
– And there is also a provision that grants a maximum $1000 tax credit to families who choose not to use the public school to which they are assigned. Families who home school their children can receive a $500 tax credit.
[ Maybe this one needs an income cap,
but I wonder if the net effect of
this proposal would be that more
scholarship opportunities for low
income kids would open up at the
private schools? And do you really
think giving homeschooling parents
$500 of THEIR MONEY back is wrong?]
The problem with The State’s position on vouchers is that it boils down to “Watch out for the SCRG boogeyman! He’s going to eat your children”. Nevermind that the
current educational system is doing the same thing…
Doug, what do you think we’ve been doing the past two years, if not examining the proposals (and there have been many versions) in excruciating detail.
This is a side issue. But I ask you: If they’re not the stealth group they are widely believed to be, why not disclose? I would, just to shut people up. Wouldn’t you?
That point was well worth my writing six short paragraphs. We have written books, VOLUMES about the “merits.”
And Doug, Doug … there will never be an income cap on this proposal. If there were, all support for the idea (which still isn’t enough to pass it) would evaporate. The constituency for this has been, from the beginning, people who are already home-schooling or sending their kids to private schools.
The rest is window-dressing, to try to line up additional support. And it’s totally unworkable.
Doug,
If SCRG has nothing to hide why don’t they release their financial records?
I remember a year or so before Enron bit the dust there was some astroturf (fake grassroots) outfit trying to drum up enthisiasm for “privatization” of the energy grid in SC, also.
I wonder what happened to that group…
Okay, then can you save us a lot of searching through the archives and give us The State’s position on why vouchers will do more harm than good? I read the paper every day and I don’t think I can come up with a “here’s the factual evidence on why this is bad” list…
Something more than boilerplate like “it takes money out of public schools” or the old “private schools don’t have accountability” chestnut.
How about a worst case scenario as to what you think would happen to the SC educational environment (net, not just public) if this bill were to pass? Would
dropout rates increase? would PACT scores at public schools fall dramatically? How would you determine if failing schools were worse? and, the key question, how many years would it take before we’d see any effect?
The current system is in drastic need of a complete overhaul. If vouchers (or even the talk of them) spurs that on, I’m all for it.
Also, regarding the income cap on vouchers, do you really think someone who makes $100K or more is going to worry about a thousand bucks? Most of the people I know with kids in private school make double that or more. It’s a rounding error on their bank statement…
>RTH
>
>If SCRG has nothing to hide why don’t they >release their financial records?
Because then the anti-voucher crowd will focus on that aspect and not on the pros and cons of the vouchers. The case for against vouchers should be made on the merits of the proposal, not on who makes the proposal…
Who do believe is funding the SCRG and what
reason do you believe they have for attempting to influence this legislation?
Following onto what I wrote previously about private school parents not really caring about the $1000, I do believe the homeschoolers have a very legitimate case in asking for a $500 credit. These parents pay taxes and remove the burden of the state to educate their children. It’s a definite money maker for the SC government… but will the public schools allow homeschooled kids access to libraries, athletic teams, etc.? Not sure.
They should.
The only idea the socialist educrats have is to spend more money.
They can’t even tell you where the present money goes. I would like to see full disclosure of their accounting system, if they have one.
Then tell us exactly what measurable benefit was conferred by each spending item on which students, and how they verified the result.
Well, Doug, I was going to give you a link to the entire series we did last year, but when I went to it (on the Opinion page of thestate.com), imagine my embarrassment to find nothing but my kickoff column.
The column has a bulleted list previewing all the subjects we would deal with in the series. Every bullet represented at least one editorial and/or column on that aspect. It would have been really nice if the rest of the series were still there, but it’s not.
Anyway, there was nothing particularly unique about the series; we had made most of the arguments before that, and we’ve made most of them since then — multiple times. It was just handy to have the overview in one place.
But now it’s gone. Great.
It would take me a lot more time than I have available (and if I had it, I’d catch up on my endorsement notes, since I’m 16 interviews behind) to dig them all out of our archives. Tell you what — look at the bulleted list and let me know which items you’re most interested in reading more about, and I’ll dig them out as I can get to it.
NO TAX CREDITS! VOUCHERS FOR ALL!! Send your kids to any damn school you can get them to — public, private, parochial, whatever. Everybody is treated THE SAME. How unique!
Enough of Galivants Ferry III for God’s sake!!!
Shorter Doug: ignorance can’t hurt you.
More amusing Doug:
SCRG will not disclose who’s funding it because that would take attention away from it’s fabulous proposals… just as non-disclosal is doing now, eh, Doug?
What’s the big secret? Or, who is the big secret? Why can’t ordinary South Carolinians know?
Brad, here are the topics that interest me:
• The actual effect such a measure would likely have on the poor. Would it indeed grant them the same kind of “choice” that more affluent families already have?
• How well the Milwaukee program the governor cites works, and whether it’s relevant to his proposal.
• Whether the money we currently invest in public schools is paying off.
• Whether the diversion of some tax money into credits would help or hurt public schools overall.
• How the latest “choice” movement compares with the exodus to private schools that followed public school integration.
• Who is behind the well-funded national campaign to promote school “choice,” and what motivates them.
If you’re pressed for time then don’t worry about it. I’ve made up my mind already and so has Doug, obviously.
RTH,
You’re wrong about me making up my mind. I’m trying to find out more information so that I can make up my mind. I don’t automatically have a knee-jerk reaction like some people when they hear the word “voucher”. I’m not sure vouchers CAN work because there is no way to remove the slimy hands of the government from any of this. As long as there are the same politicians and bureaucrats involved in the education process, there is little hope of seeing the type of drastic change that is necessary. I just find it amusing that all The State wants to focus on now is who is behind SCRG. If the case against vouchers is so strong, just stick to the facts about them. Brad continually peppers his commentary with condescending and derogatory statements about voucher supporters and I find that detracts from his message.
I actually did some further reading on the Milwaukee program today. It appears to have benefited many kids while also opening the door for some fly-by-night charter schools that are just in it for the money.
The more data I get, the less supportive I am becoming about the viability of vouchers.
And that (going back to my earlier point) is because the government is not set up to do anything efficiently. Mediocrity is the hallmark of our government schools. Vouchers are probably a band aid for a condition that requires amputation.
Any of you voucher opponents willing to bet that we’ll still be talking about Allendale and other failing schools in 2016? And that our high school dropout rate will still be at or near the worst in the country? And that all of you government school proponents will still be fighting any attempt to make significant change in the system?
The questions that never get answered still remain: How much more money do you need to fix the schools and how much more time? How many students will pass through the system before real change occurs? How many more school days will be wasted on worthless PACT tests? (note: my 7th grade son took the Math PACT test today. He said it covered only concepts that they learned in 5th grade… On Monday, they wrote an essay on a time when they had helped save an animal – two of the three kids I carpool with said they just made up a story… so what purpose does all this testing serve????) You guys never want to deal with REALITY, only RHETORIC.
Talk to some teachers sometime. Talk to some students. Try and teach a class sometime (I have). YOU might learn something.
Mr. W, The State is doing great work on this issue. Really.
See, I can say something positive every now and then. 😉
What’s the big secret? Or, who is the big secret?
I’ll bet it starts with a “G” and ends with “Rover Norquist.”
Actually, Grover is more of a factor as to why we haven’t had a cigarette tax increase, even though 72 percent of South Carolinians say they want one.
But it doesn’t matter what we want, does it? Not if Grover doesn’t want it.
I won’t support anything a group is trying to push if they won’t disclose who their financial supporters happen to be.
I am farily middle road on this issue. I think it is almost worth an experienment.
But I won’t support it unless I see the list of donors – and yes- I get mail from them all the time basically asking me not to vote for Bill Cotty.
I have news for you – I am going to fully support Bill Cotty just to spite them at this point.
I am no fool and no group is going to play me like one.
You aren’t supposed to tax 28 percent of the people because the other 72 percent want to tax them. That is naked democratic mob rule. It is un-American.
Defenders of the educational status quo try to gin up phony scare issues about “secret donors” of “outside agitators” financing reform movements.
I have donated to campaigns in other states to remove crooked politicians. That is how Tom Foley was removed after the Congressional Post Office scandal and his tie-breaking vote for gun control. 2,000,000 small donors financed a newcomer to oust the crook.
If The State wants to practice some real journalism, they could cut their teeth on publishing the secret spending by the NEA and the school boards. Maybe just start small, with the no-bid contracts of the City of Columbia. But something real. No more contrived bogeyman issues.
So, Lee, did you donate to Tom the Bugman’s opponent?
Delay and Santorum make Foley look like a jaywalker.
David, it’s good to leave getting played for a fool to professionals like Dave and Lee.
Doug, we haven’t been talking about vouchers. “Vouchers” are when per-pupil spending follows a child wherever that child goes to school.
We’ve been talking about tuition tax credits. There might be a way to make “vouchers” per se work, in theory — although I haven’t seen such a system yet.
But the tax credits are based in cynical political calculations that deserve every ounce of scorn heaped upon them. It’s important to understand the difference (which, ironically, many opponents of the plans fail to do, preferring to fall back on meaningless diatribes against “vouchers.”)
The particulars of the tax credit plans have varied — amounts, etc. — over the past year or so, but the basic concept has been the same. You shell out money to send your child to private school, or for the expenses involved in home-schooling. Then you pay your income taxes. Then you get a certain amount back from your taxes.
This only works for people who a) can afford to pay for private schooling in the first place, and can afford to front the money and wait for (partial) reimbursement; b) can arrange transportation; c) make enough money to pay enough in taxes to take advantage of the credit when tax time rolls around.
Those categories do not include the kids who live in the poorest communities and go to the poorest schools.
The bills usually contain a provision that gives an appearance of acknowledging that the tax credit won’t help the poor, and allows a credit to those who give to scholarship-granting organizations. This helps with the rhetoric, but is politically deadly. It is seen by lawmakers (including some who support “choice” in theory) as dangerously harmful to state revenues and legitimate charities(wouldn’t you rather get a tax credit than give to the Salvation Army and get a mere deduction?), and tends to be the most vulnerable part.
Politically, the part that drives most of what support there is out there among the electorate for this is the part that pays credits to those who can already afford private school. It’s been essential to the two plans that faced significant votes in 2005 and this year.
“Vouchers” have not played into either debate.
TAX CREDITS are for the “haves”. They will do nothing for those of moderate and less means. The only fair way for schooling is for education money to “follow the child”.
The SCRG bill had both tax credit and
voucher (they use the term “scholarship” to
avoid the negative connotation) components,
i.e. a $4500 scholarship for children in failing schools.
Are you saying you don’t have a problem with that aspect of the bill, just the $1K tax credit? I want to make sure I have The State’s position correct: tax credits bad, vouchers okay?
And, again, I’ll ask you: do you really think 1000 bucks makes that much of a difference to people making $100K or more?
The people I know who have kids at Hammond and Heathwood, etc. are bankers, doctors, lawyers, professional athletes, orthodontists, etc. I’ve never heard any of them say, “I really need an extra $1000 to make ends meet”. More often, these people are the ones who donate significant money to local causes like the arts and charities. A large percentage of a $1000
tax credit would probably end up right back in the local economy.
And do you ever stop to consider what our school systems would be like here in Columbia if those private schools didn’t exist? Just between the larger schools like Hammond (1000 students), Heathwood (800), Ben Lippen (700), and Timmerman (400), there would be 3000 additional students. Who do you think would be impacted most by those additional 3000 students — my guess would be those that are currently in the most need.
Maybe all those “rich private school parents” looking for a $1000 handout would be better off by threatening to put their kids back into the public school system.
You know, the one they already are paying
for but not using.
That’s it – I’ve made my mind up. Rather than a $1000 tax credit, we should impose a $10,000 tax on all private school kids. We need to force these people who are willing to pay extra for a higher quality education to have the same opportunity as the rest of us!!!
Vouchers which “follow the child” don’t get much attention or consideration. I don’t understand why.
Take Catholic schools for example. These are private, and are attended by many minority students. Suppose vouchers followed these children and money was paid to the school for core subjects. Subjects such as reading, writing, mathmatics, American history, state history, literature, etc. CORE courses only. Religion, social and similar courses are paid for by the parents.
Warthen or Doug or someone tell me why this wouldn’t work. Why shouldn’t every student, whether public or private, have core courses paid for by the state (taxpayers). Also, home schools and charter schools.
Why wouldn’t this work?
Spencer, it would work. But those who want to maintain the status quo will fight it to the bitter end. A solid majority of black parents support vouchers, but, what do they know? They are only parents, not the educational professionals.
White liberal and moderate socialists don’t trust blacks to choose their own schools. They might teach the children to be come self-sufficient, and self-governing, where they would no longer be dependent on government handouts.
Then there would be one less reason to tax the Productive Class. The whole New Deal could unravel in a hurry.
Vouchers would also provide a form of mobility for all students that liberals would not want to see. That is, poor blacks showing up at the best schools. And I know, this thread isnt really about vouchers.