Johnson, Smith, Brown speak on the bill

Note: Following is an encapsulation of remarks made by legislators during today's debate. While this note does reflect remarks made by these lawmakers, it is not a full and verbatim transcript of the remarks.

Rep. Kevin Johnson: The real losers here are our public school teachers, principals, students.

I am truly disappointed. I came up here assuming I was working with some of the most intellectual people in South Carolina, and this is what we have.

For 15 years, serving as a school board member, I saw the demise, how they were trying to bring school choice in. Finally, finally, Mr. Rich has won. A New Yorker has won because he sent enough money down here to convince you.

So I applaud you, South Carolinians -- I applaud you for doing an idiotic thing.

Rep. James Smith: It's all about perception that we're providing parents choice and helping poor children; we're doing neither of those things. We're going to spend $37 million, and these taxpayers are going to get $140 and say, You've got choice now.

This is outrageous. This body has just failed to fund minimally adequate education. We're a poor state. We have real challenges. Yet we're spending $37 million to allegedly provide choice.

You're not speaking the truth. You're telling them a lie.

But you're going to undermine the efforts we're making to improve public education.

For wealthy families, this is just gravy. They're already paying for private school tuition, and this is just another nice dinner out.

Gravy for families who really don't need it, aren't asking for it, at a sacrifice to our public schools. I hope you feel real good about voting for this bill.

This is just the foot in the door. They've been working on this for ten years. Back then, it was a lot bigger effort; they kept making it smaller, and they've spent 12 to 15 million dollars just to get to this day.

After 10 years, we're going to give South Carolina families, poor and wealthy, $140 if you home-school, $280 to go to private school.

They're getting a lie, is what they're getting.

Don't feel like you're doing anything to improve the lives of working people.

There is no choice here, just a false promise, an ideology that propagates this notion.

This is one of those days when it doesn't add up. They finally get a victory; took a really bad idea and sold it to the people of our state. They'll be back next year, working to undermine public education again. And I and my colleagues will be back to defend it.

Rep. Grady Brown: I asked my deskmate, the Rev. Karl Anderson to tell me this story again.

Howard Rich and his infamous money have walked around this State House seven times, and the walls came tumbling down.

I wonder -- I'm passionate about it -- how many hundreds of thousands of dollars that Howard Rich and his donors have doled out to candidates in South Carolina. In time, I intend to find out.

It's something that needs to be said, why he and his many donors from all over the United States sent thousands of dollars here. Why do we have to have someone from outside the state, from New York, to try to deter the educational process we have in this state. Why?

Smith's Amendment 23 tabled

Note: Following is an encapsulation of actions taken and remarks made by legislators during today's debate. While this note does reflect remarks made by these lawmakers, it is not a full and verbatim transcript of the remarks.

Rep. James Smith's Amendment 23 seeks to establish accountability.

Smith: This is an important amendment. We want to spend state dollars responsibly and accountably. We expect that of our public schools. Without this amendment, we're spending $37 million without accountability.

We ought to want high standards, demand excellence and performance, whether in our public education system or this new system.

There's no accountability for performance, no standards for what is taught. We will be doing a disservice to these students.

We're making the decision to spend $37 million when we just passed an appropriation bill that failed to meet the base student cost.

If we know today we're funding the base student cost at less than what the law demands, we admit we're not funding a minimally adequate education, what the law requires.

We've set a standard of passing bills that are facially unconstitutional. Our Constitution states as follows, No money shall be paid for public funds nor shall the credit of the state...be used for the benefit of any religious or private institution.

It's pretty clear. That's exactly what you're doing with this bill.

Members, I think this is important. We take an oath to defend the Constitution.

If you're going to do that, at least adopt this amendment. I understand if you think it's okay to spend public dollars on private schools, but at least make sure you do it in a responsible way and implement Education Accountability Act standards.

Rep. Brian White moved to table the amendment; Smith requested roll call.

Vote: 64-47, tabled.

Statesman Smith fights for South Carolina's children

When building a South Carolina statesman from scratch, one can't do better than to use Rep. James Smith as a model. His Twitter bio encapsulates the case: "Husband, Father, Soldier, Lawyer, Legislator, Musician & devoted American & South Carolinian; thankful for our freedom & dedicated to an even better SC for all."

In a meritocratic world where earned experience and achievement count for something, Smith would be a two-term governor, then represent South Carolina in the U.S. Senate for a half-dozen terms, maybe even serve in a presidential Cabinet or two before he retires.

But South Carolina prefers kakistocracy to meritocracy in its government, so Smith's obvious statesmanship is rewarded with trophies and luncheons instead of higher office. Still, it's a unique luncheon that draws together CIA Director David Petraeus, former Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins, Senator Lindsay Graham, current Governor's Mansion occupant Nikki Haley, and the statesman from whose cloth Smith was cut, former Governor Dick Riley.

It's this Smith who writes in today's The State about the plight of South Carolina's children, and the need to address their issues immediately.

It has become commonplace to see South Carolina listed in the bottom five states on measures of child well-being. One in four children in South Carolina lives in poverty, a precarious situation that puts them at a much greater risk for some of our most costly social problems, such as child abuse and neglect and lack of school readiness. Forty percent of all cases of abuse and neglect occur among children ages 4 and younger, and one in five children is not ready for the first grade, according to the most recent figures from Kids Count.

While policymakers don’t have a silver bullet to end poverty for all families, we know from decades of research that targeted early interventions can dramatically improve the situation. In a world of increasing demands on government, S.C. lawmakers should rely on evidence to focus our scarce state resources on programs that we know to be effective and efficient.

A solid example of using the science of child development to craft smart policy is voluntary home visiting, which pairs at-risk families with trained professionals who provide vital information and support before birth and during a child’s first years of life.

Evidence-based home-visiting programs can help break the cycle of abuse and violence and help prepare children for success in school. This proven strategy fosters stronger parent-child bonds and a safer and a more stimulating home environment, and increases children’s school readiness.

Mothers receiving home visits from trained professionals are more likely to deliver healthy babies. Mothers as well as fathers who participate in home visiting also learn how to care for their babies during the critical period after birth — when children’s brains grow to 80 percent of their adult size, forming the brain architecture necessary for mental and social capacity. In these years, a child’s brain is twice as active as that of an adult and is soaking up the world around it, building vocabulary, learning skills and undergoing emotional and social development.

Encouraging parental responsibility during these formative years through voluntary home-visiting programs has demonstrated great benefits to the children, reducing the incidence of low birth weight by 50 percent and child abuse and neglect by 80 percent. These programs also have been found to increase early literacy and math skills by an average of 82 percent and reduce arrest rates of children by age 15 by more than 50 percent.

In South Carolina, we invested nearly $7 million in state and federal money in fiscal year 2010 on voluntary home-visiting programs for at-risk families. Unfortunately, we do not have a system in place to track results and determine the best practices necessary to achieve the highest quality outcomes.

This year, I am co-sponsoring legislation that will ensure our home-visiting programs are the most effective and efficient they can be, by establishing a mechanism for data collection and comparison. H.4317 would direct funding to the most effective programs, strengthen standards and improve monitoring of each program’s outcomes.

Armed with evidence, we will be able to ensure that scarce resources are being used to build strong families across the state through high-quality, voluntary home visiting for at-risk families.

What's done to the least of these...

Thanks, Representative Smith.