A colleague points out the editorial in which the Anderson paper over the weekend celebrated the demise of efforts to slip the whole taxpayers-subsidize-private-schools thing into the open enrollment bill. An excerpt;
An attempt to further frustrate improvements in public schools in South Carolina was defeated in the Senate last week. The addition of private school vouchers to a bill allowing open enrollment within the public school system was dismissed nearly two-to-one, according to published reports. Debate continues on the original proposal, despite this latest pass at – and latest failure of – supporting private education with public money.
That’s good. But isn’t it a shame how, in South Carolina, we almost never get to celebrate any really good, bold, positive measures passing our Legislature — such as real DOT reform, or a comprehensive tax revamp, or addressing the profound problems in the Corridor of Shame, or setting local governments free to govern locally, or anything really helpful.
No, the best we get to do is celebrate when something really, really awful fails to pass.
Sad.
Related Posts
Sad yes, but we should celebrate none-the-less!
Three cheers for protecting our failing schools! Hip-hip-hooray! Hip-hip-hooray! Hip-hip-hooray!
We should be celebrating that 0.5% of students in lousy schools MIGHT have a choice to go to another school two years from now (unless that school is at capacity)!
This is the bold, decisive leadership we need in order to turn around our failing schools before the end of the century…
93 years to go and we should move ahead of Mississippi and Alabama! Ain’t no stopping us now!
How come nobody talks about the specifics of this sham? It’s a phony public relations ploy… there isn’t going to be any measurable impact on education in South Carolina. Smoke and mirrors — the two main tools in the educrat toolbox.
Right on, Doug.
For public education supporters, the Education Accountability Act and No Child Left Behind Tap Dance are hollow without real options for the kids in the failing schools if there’s no room at better performing ones. Where can they go? To the manger?
We — and I include many administrators — can’t seem to admit that part of the problem is that some kids are disruptive and further complicate achievement by taunting those who do achieve. There’s little parental involvement, and when there is it’s of the sort that’s counterproductive, as in “My child deserves respect!” even if s/he is a dirtball.
Let us return to the days of yesteryear: segregation, but based on attitude / performance, not skin color.
The problem within Richland District One (RDO) is that even in the better schools, administrators are often unwilling to enforce reasonable behavior, then wonder why they have to call the cops so often. The latest directive is to reward good behavior, but no mention of strict penalties for poor behavior, indicative of the high tolerance for misbehavior and obviously no control for the after-school taunting of classmates who “act white” or “act upper class” by trying to do well.
To be fair, school administrators are afraid of lawsuits, but that’s part of the problem. Parents can easily sue for one stupid reason or another, leaving the administration wondering where the heck they can draw the line.
Are we surprise that kids’ performance declines as they move through the hierarchy?
Yet RDO, a hotbed of politics, almost seems to welcome the departure of malcontent teachers and administrators for Richland District #2 and elsewhere. Why not have The State survey these other districts to find out how many have hired experienced RDO folks over the past couple of years. From what I’ve seen, the best depart for the other districts since the other districts won’t accept anything but the best. Note too that the dearly departed get the same pay, but leave for better working conditions.
What caliber remains behind? The competent who still really have hope, and the incompetent who are just getting by, that’s who.
While you’re at it, take a gander at what RDO does with the administrators it replaces for reasons of, er, incompetence, and what it pays them to keep them quiet.
Sorry for the rant, but I work with first-class folks in a second-tier state tired of the third-rate schools boosted by a fourth estate that must be downing a fifth by six to publish positive editorials on our schools seven days per week.
(Durn, I can’t get closer to the 1993 winner.)
What do you expect? If you keep hanging on to the same basic philosophy, then you are going to keep getting the same kinds of results. Why does school funding have to depend on local government taxes? Why have thousands of school districts across the US that duplicate one-another’s efforts with totally separate administrations? Why should the quality of one’s education depend upon the wealth of the community or state where you live? If you live in a poor state, and if you know that capitalism more than exponentially redistributes the wealth generated by your populace to individuals and corporations residing in wealthier states, then wouldn’t it make sense to use federal taxes to pay for education and healthcare? Wouldn’t it make sense to eliminate all regressive sales taxes and replace them with a national progressive wealth tax? Exxon Mobile has an unreal net worth (something like $450 billion) and has been making record profits coincident with the rise of gasoline prices. South Carolina has something like a $5 billion annual state budget. Why shouldn’t we have a national wealth tax on the Exxon Mobile’s of the world to pay for our schools and healthcare?
Exxon Mobil, that is.
One can always count on Whittington for an anti-capitalist, socialist rant, can’t one?
The petroleum industry manages about a 7% profit margin, Mark. This is a much smaller margin than many other industries, and yet that fact is conveniently ignored by people like you when you want to advance your silly-a$$ed and dangerous leftist agenda. What is the problem with a company having a $450B net worth when that company is in a business which requires huge capital outlays for the exploration, development and extraction of its’ product? Petroleum companies are big because thay MUST be in order to efficiently develop and market their product, and do it competitively, but anti-capitalists like you demonize them for being big in order to do nothing but advance socialism. These companies have often spent years actually losing money or barely breaking even, and as soon as they make some profit, here come the vultures…the shallow thinkers and low-hanging-fruit nitwits attempting to villify an industry in order to expand government or curtail trade or reduce freedom or whatever the hell you’re trying to do. If you really want to be honest and villify the right entity Mark, why not villify the federal government? It does absolutely NOTHING towards bringing affordable fuel to market, and yet stands with its grubby hand out to collect more in taxes on a gallon of gas than anyone in the production stream makes on it? Oh yeah..that’s right…you LOVE big government…we shouldn’t look to you for honesty, should we? Ed
And before I quit Mark…your arguement above is so typical of the nonsense we get from the left when you’re trying to take individual facts and make them support your particular ideology. To wit: It may be true that Exxon Mobil has made big profits recently as gas prices have soared at the pump. However, where were YOU when the petroleum industry was busted a decade ago? The petroleum industry has been a boom and bust industry since the seventies, but all I ever hear from socialists like you is complaints when they make some money…you NEVER say a word when they’re essentially bankrupt. Again I point to a 7% average profit margin and ask you, what’s the frickin problem? By the way, do you actually believe that Exxon Mobil sets the price of gas at the pump? Do you not think that it is reasonable for Exxon Mobil to adjust their costs of production to reflect increases in the cost of their next unit of raw material? Point being…Exxon Mobil essentially has no control over what their next barrel of crude costs them…it depends on world markets, demand by other countries, etc etc. But not to you, apparently. You’d rather just have Exxon Mobil to beat on so you can advance whatever socialist talking point you’re on at the moment. Sad thing is, some people actually believe you. Ed
Mark –
I keep getting confused on the expropriations. I thought we were going to take Big Oil’s profits to fund education and take Big Pharma’s profits to fund healthcare.
That would leave the Big Three’s and airline profits for roads and public transportation — ooops, those profits are not currently available! I guess the high tech companies’ and investment house (securities, banks, etc.) profits are off the table until after the election, but nobody’s made a move on the electrical generating utilities yet, so there’s some profits that are up for grabs.
Is it too rude to suggest that we tax the heck out of the lawyers’ profits, or are they off-limits until after the election too?
This gets so confusing…
Anyone from the anti-voucher side dare to provide factual support for how the public school choice bill will improve education? I haven’t seen anyone (outside of the PR flacks for the Jim Rex) who can describe just how this will make any failing school one iota better.
Two years to get to 0.5% open slots at schools with excess capacity. Those are the facts. Only the government could call that progress.
The only thing that will improve education is improving education. “Failing schools” need to be fixed. Fortunately, we can fix public schools that need it — if we have the will.
Unfortunately, we’ve wasted political energy for a couple of years debating something that, in its essence, is about giving up on the schools we CAN do something about if we choose — the public ones, the ones we own and control — in favor of throwing tax money at schools we have NO say over, which in no way are accountable to us. Why? Because there is a distressingly large (still a significant minority, but loud enough to get attention) group of people who believe the ludicrous proposition that the MARKET, of all things, will bring brilliant, wonderful private schools to communities that don’t have the economic juice to attract a decent grocery store.
Pathetic, but that’s where we are and where we’ve been.
As for open enrollment, it will do no harm and please a few people.
Doug, five tenths of one percent? Let’s see, that’d come out to something like 5 students out of a thousand wouldn’t it? And we get this in just TWO short years?
Brad tosses around the word “pathetic” when he describes people who’d like to try something new and meaningful to improve public education. Seems to me that HIS side has the patent on and owns the rights to ‘pathetic’ He evidently thinks that since what we’re doing now isn’t working, we just need to do more of it and do it more quickly. Now THAT is pathetic. Ed
> As for open enrollment, it will do no harm and please a few people.
Wow… that’s a glowing endorsement if I ever saw one. And by “a few people”, I assume you mean Jim Rex’s campaign staff and the educrats who will be paid to monitor the 0.5% plan?
The voucher proponents are a relatively new bunch. They came about in RESPONSE to poor education in this state. To try and pin any blame on them for the current state of education in South Carolina is beyond a reach.
Here’s an example of someone actually doing something about public education. Mayor Bloomberg in NYC has implemented policies that have increased graduation rates to the highest levels in decades. Some of the key aspects of his plan:
– Ending social promotion
– Increasing teacher pay to the point where they have 7 applicants for every position
– Adding 2.5 hours per week in small (<10 students) classrooms for kids who are falling behind
- Creating an "empowerment schools" program where principals receive greater discretion over budgets, educational programming, teacher development, school scheduling and hiring. In exchange for greater flexibility and control, principals sign performance agreements that lay out new powers, resources, and responsibilities. In addition, empowerment schools receive about $100,000 in newly unrestricted funds and about $150,000 in new, discretionary funds made possible by streamlining the central and regional DOE bureaucracy and redirecting financial resources back to the schools.
Today’s paper brings us the cheery news of a planned half BILLION dollar bond referendum for Richland 2 next year. Anyone who votes for this is an idiot – plain and simple. Just how badly does the traffic in Northeast Columbia have to get before the people get it? The only way to stop the sprawl is to stop giving them money to spend to subsidize the developers who have raped and pillaged what was once a decent place to live. Guess who comes up with the 10 year spending plan? M.B. Kahn. Guess who builds many of the schools? M.B. Kahn.
When I ran for school board in 2002, I had three main issues: dealing with the growth in Richland County, limiting PACT testing, and getting tougher on discipline in the classroom. I was five years too early. PACT is dead. Sprawl has won. And the inmates/students have taken over the asylums/schools. And the voters keep putting the same people on the board, year after year. Half the board has been there for a dozen years shepherding Richland 2 on a downward spiral to mediocrity.