Lawmakers seek to punish unemployed educators

Let's begin with vocabulary.

"Employed" means having a job, and working.

"Unemployed" means not having a job, and not working.

"Unemployment benefits" are the weak, thin and pale safety net that South Carolina lawmakers pretend to offer our state's unemployed citizens as subsistence -- the barest minimum in funding that might help buy groceries and little else.

Because some public employees are only employed for nine months out of the year, simple arithmetic reveals that they are unemployed for three months out of the year. My elementary math teachers would be pleased at my ability to work out that equation.

Some of our lawmakers have stumbled upon the same answer, and they've realized that, indeed, unemployed citizens qualify for unemployment benefits. This, according to some lawmakers, is unacceptable.

So they seek to punish the unemployed -- for being unemployed.

Wouldn't you know, those lawmakers hail from the Upstate.

What is it about the Upstate that drives many of its legislators to take the lead on whipping the weak, beating the beaten, punishing the poor, depriving the destitute? Is it a vestigial tail of the Upstate's old mill village system, wherein mill owners and mill supervisors acted as mayors, big-daddies, judges, juries and executioners, all rolled together? Those mill titans, after all, set their own personal values as mill-village rules and regulations, and those daring to break the rules were cast out on the sidewalk -- literally. Factually. Historically. Demonstrably.

Examples were made of those mill chattel who dared to imagine having rights as American citizens.

A hundred years later, examples are being made of our public employees who dare to draw the benefits available to them. The Greenville News reports it:

Some substitute teachers have collected unemployment benefits for being out during school breaks, such as summer recess, and some legislative pages or aides also are able to collect unemployment, say lawmakers who are moving to stop such benefits.

South Carolina teachers, including substitutes, are forbidden by law from collecting unemployment when they aren’t working during holiday, spring or summer breaks. But the law refers to teachers employed by school systems, and some staffing companies are now employing hundreds of substitute teachers, making the teachers exempt from the unemployment law.

The disclosures come as some legislators are moving to tighten benefits and wring the system of waste. A January 2010 audit found that the agency had spent $171 million over three years paying benefits to those fired for misconduct and illegal acts.

Sen. Kevin Bryant of Anderson, who chairs a subcommittee studying unemployment benefits, said the eligibility of those teachers and legislative workers are examples of holes in the system he wants to tighten.

“We’re trying to put our fingers in the dike,” he said.

Here's a suggestion: Lawmakers can seal up the whole dam altogether by eliminating hundreds of corporate tax loopholes and requiring big, powerful corporate titans to pay taxes in South Carolina just like the moms and pops running corner stores. Sticking a finger in a dike is petty; big, powerful lawmakers ought to be able to do better than this.

Rep. William Sandifer, a Seneca Republican who chairs the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee and authored the bill addressing the substitute teacher situation, said it all boils down to treating substitutes hired by private firms the same way as those hired by public schools.

“It’s a matter of being fair and equitable and living up not only to the letter but also to the spirit of the law,” he said.

Rep. Garry Smith, a Simpsonville Republican who chairs the House Operations and Management Committee, said he authored a budget proviso that passed the House that would prevent pages and legislative aides from collecting unemployment. Legislation addressing seasonal workers that he believes would also ban legislative aides or pages from collecting unemployment also is pending in the Senate, he said.

“We have made it very clear up front that legislative aides are temporary, part-time workers,” he said. “They are only here while we are here in session. I don’t think there was ever any intent by the General Assembly that they would ever be eligible for unemployment.”

The lesson to be learned from this news, readers, is this:

How do you keep powerless people down?

You kick 'em while they're down, and you keep kicking 'em, and keep kicking 'em...

Leventis speaks truth to entrenched power

Sen. Phil Leventis has many fans and many detractors, and that's likely because he's been in office many years.

As he wraps up his last term, it's pleasant to see him still swinging for the fences, as he does in this opinion-editorial, published last week in The State.

Tell it, Senator.

With my legislative tenure coming to an end, I want to share something with my fellow South Carolinians. Our state is not broke, but we are teetering on the verge of moral bankruptcy in our failure to meet the needs of our citizens. That’s why I have introduced the TRAC Recommendation Act (S.1454) that eliminates or reduces many sales-tax exemptions. The nearly $1 billion this act will raise annually would be used to pay for education and local governments, which continue to be shorted due to lack of revenue.

During my 32 years as a legislator, I have been guided by the principle that government should invest in meeting the needs and aspirations of its citizens. This principle has been undermined by an ideology claiming that government is the cause of our problems and, accordingly, must be starved.

The real source of our problems is a government unwilling to invest tax dollars in itself and its citizens. When businesses strive to be competitive, they invest in their future. That is what we have to do today in South Carolina to ensure a more prosperous future.

We’re not broke. The problem is that narrow political ideology has trumped statesmanship. The lack of political will to fairly reform our tax code to meet our basic civic contracts for education and infrastructure leads our citizens to believe that “minimally adequate” is the best we can hope for.

In 2010, the Tax Realignment Commission (TRAC) was created to review the state’s tax code and recommend changes “designed to ensure that the state’s tax structure is balanced so that the system is adequate, equitable, and efficient.” The TRAC commissioners and staff did a thorough job of reviewing tax loopholes and inequities, and recommended reforms of sales-tax exemptions that could raise close to $1 billion the first year.

Sadly, ideology trumped common sense, and the Republican-created and -appointed commission’s goal was to use any new revenue to further reduce taxes and increase corporate subsidies, not pay our bills.

Our state’s fixation on being business-friendly is reflected in the Forbes ranking that puts South Carolina fifth in its “business friendly regulatory environment” but 44th in quality of life. Forbes ranks the quality of our labor supply at 22nd, far behind North Carolina (third) and Georgia (fourth). The message this sends is that South Carolina, with its lax regulations and unskilled labor force, is a cheap place to do business — but you might not want to live here.

To put the anti-tax ideology in perspective, consider that of all the industrialized nations, only Turkey and Mexico have a lower individual tax burden than the United States, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The anti-tax National Tax Foundation ranks South Carolina 43rd among the 50 states in taxes as a percentage of income, and dead last in per capita state and local taxes. You begin to wonder why we need to further reduce taxes when we can’t pay our bills.

The House’s budget cuts mandatory funding for education by $665 million and local government funds by $71 million and robs $118 million from the general fund to cover the sales-tax shortfall of Act 388’s property-tax swap. These spending levels are set by law, but education and local government funding obligations are ignored annually by budget provisos because of a presumed lack of revenue and a clear shortage of political courage. These cuts mean larger classes, fewer teachers, police and firefighters and deteriorating infrastructure, all of which combine to make our state less competitive.

The TRAC recommendations on sales taxes would raise nearly $1 billion next year and more in coming years. This is what we need to meet these mandatory spending requirements, and more comprehensive tax reforms would meet and exceed them for years to come.

I’m sponsoring this bill because there is no real legislative debate — and little public understanding — about how we could raise the revenue to pay our bills with fair and broad tax reforms while also improving our quality of life and strengthening our economy.

The critical debate I hope to spark is whether the role of our government is shaped by the special-interest groups who make the majority of campaign contributions, or by the citizens who pay the taxes. I believe that citizens are willing to pay fair and equitable taxes when they get their money’s worth. It’s called democracy, and it’s past time for South Carolinians to reclaim it.

South Carolina: Where the rubber meets the road

Atlanta, the metropolis, identifies with several well-established brands -- Coca-Cola and CNN among them -- and is capital of the South itself, with Georgia generally known for peaches and peanuts. So Georgia feeds its people two ways, with the fruits of the earth and with intelligence about their world.

North Carolina transitioned from tobacco and marine fisheries to Research Triangle Park, merging entrepreneurial high-tech with the highest standards of public and private higher education, and the fine furniture mecca of the eastern seaboard. No mean feat: North Carolina, we might say, has made itself a leader in equipping its population with the best of interior and exterior living.

And we -- we, here in South Carolina -- we've been so proud to let our tourism industry do the heavy lifting on the coast, and to help BMW build monuments to itself in the Upstate, that we neglected to notice how our own standing in our world has shifted. Tourism gives tourists attractions to visit; BMW gives them fine conveyances by which to get here and to leave.

Let's not quibble over Boeing with its Dreamliner 787 in North Charleston; who in South Carolina expects to ride a Dreamliner 787 from Charleston to Columbia? From Myrtle Beach to Greenville? From Aiken to Rock Hill? Indeed, the example of Boeing's contribution to our social and cultural lives is almost the worst: Through Boeing, we in South Carolina produce fine airplanes for faraway people who will enjoy them, not for ourselves.

Yes, Boeing is almost the worst example, but there's a worse one now.

Might we begin changing the signs at the border now? "Welcome to South Carolina, Where The Rubber Meets the Road"?

South Carolina is fast becoming the leading producer and exporter of tires in the United States, overshadowing once-mighty Ohio as the Tire Capital of America.

The Palmetto State recently overtook Ohio – home of Akron, Goodyear and its iconic blimp – as the nation’s No. 1 tire exporter.

In a year or two, experts predict, the state will achieve an even more impressive milestone – it could roll past Oklahoma as the nation’s No. 1 tire manufacturer.

South Carolina has nine active tire plants and two more on the way – more than any other state.

“Clearly, South Carolina is doing a very good job at demonstrating to our manufacturers it’s a very good place to be,” said Dan Zielinski, senior vice president of the Rubber Manufacturers Association, the Washington, D.C., lobbying firm that represents the eight largest tire manufacturers in North American.

So why is South Carolina outpacing other states, even Ohio, for the title of Tire Capital?

“Many say the reason is that South Carolina has a ‘business friendly environment’ – that means it’s a right-to-work state, non-union,” said Bruce Davis, who has covered the tire industry for 33 years at the Akron-based Tire Business magazine. “You can definitely make a case for that. … But there is no one single factor. It’s just the ease of doing business down there, from top to bottom.”

The state’s anti-union stance coupled with low taxes, a ready, comparatively cheap work force, a major port and a central location on the East Coast with substantial interstate highways and rail hubs all are part of the winning formula, experts said.

This is amazing, in that the same words could have been used to describe us during slavery: "a ready, comparatively cheap work force," "a major port and a central location on the East Coast."

In a century -- two centuries, even three centuries -- all that we've changed are the names in charge. And everybody knows it.

“The state is good for getting heavy stuff out and raw materials in,” Davis said.

Those factors allowed South Carolina to nearly triple the number of tires Ohio shipped overseas in 2011, in the process capturing about a third of the nation’s entire export market for tires. The state in 2011 also passed neighboring North Carolina for the No. 2 spot on the tire manufacturing list – for both domestic and foreign markets – and is closing in on No. 1 Oklahoma.

But experts added that the willingness of state, county and municipal governments to work one-on-one with company officials to locate plants, the judicious use of state incentives – others would say generous – along with offers of free land and other local perks are the closers in competitions with other states.

Free land? Free land?

We're giving away free land to corporate masters to locate their factories here, to bring low-paying jobs here? To bring all the air and water pollution that comes with processing raw materials and producing finished vulcanized rubber tires here? Free land, really?

Where exactly is this free land, and why isn't it free to the taxpayers who already live here and pay taxes in South Carolina?

“The state government, county governments and local governments all seem to be mobilizing more resources (than other states),” Davis said. “And it’s not just money.”

I interpret this happytalk to mean that South Carolina's leaders all seem to be selling us and our children cheap to corporate entities who will guarantee life as usual in our frozen-in-place state.

Mark Cook, of the Washington, D.C.,-based Tire Industry Association, agreed that the combination of a business-friendly environment, a strong transportation system, workforce training and incentives – along with personal attention from the mayor’s office and county council chamber to the governor’s mansion and the State House – is paying off.

“That … has all come together to create a perfect storm for South Carolina,” he said. “And those are big factors in its rise in manufacturing overall.”

As an exporter, South Carolina is on a roll across the board:

The state currently holds a 30 percent share of U.S. tire exports.

• Car and light truck/SUV exports were up 52 percent in 2011.

• Overall, the state’s exports increased 21.4 percent in 2011 over 2010, making it the 17th largest exporting state.

• In total, South Carolina shipped some $24.6 billion in goods to 198 countries around the world.

“We are so in the game now,” said Lewis Gossett, chief executive of the S.C. Manufacturing Alliance. “They are all coming for the same reason. They are close to market – whether it’s direct to the customer or to the port. If they need a quality work force, we can get what we need from the technical colleges. These guys can come to South Carolina and get the best service imaginable.”

Did you catch that? "If they need a quality work force, we can get what we need from the technical colleges," the fellow says.

I addressed this point a while back, but it bears repeating:

As South Carolina gradually becomes the vulcanized rubber processor for the nation's automobile industry, the Journal salivates over our willingness to turn our technical colleges into tire-factory training facilities -- and our willingness to fund the training!

What suckers we must look like.

So long as the folks at the top are satisfied, I reckon it'll remain this way.

And those tire export and production numbers will be going up.

All three of the state’s tire companies – Bridgestone, Michelin and now Continental – made major announcements of new plants or expansions in the past year.

• Michelin announced Tuesday it will expand its Earthmover tire plant in Lexington County and build a plant to make the 4-ton tires for heavy construction equipment in Anderson County. The company’s announcement brings its total investment in the state in the past year to about $1 billion and more than 750 new jobs.

• Continental Tire recently broke ground on a $500 million plant in Sumter County that promises 1,600 new jobs by 2021.

• And Bridgestone is investing $1.2 billion to expand its Aiken County operations and hire 850 more workers – the biggest single corporate investment in state history.

For those three projects, the state offered the companies a total of $55 million in incentives, mostly for site preparation. That doesn’t include job-creation tax credits that the companies can apply for later.

“You’re planting a seed and letting it grow,” S.C. Secretary of Commerce Bobby Hitt said in an interview with The State. “Investment is important, but I’m more interested in the jobs than investment.”

For good reason. The state’s jobless rate has been one of the highest in the nation.

However, South Carolina’s employment rate dropped for the seventh month in a row in February, to 9.1 percent. That’s down 2 full percentage points from its Great Recession-high of 11.1 percent in August 2011.

That and the recent announcements led a North Carolina journalist to pen a blog headlined: “When It Comes to Jobs, the Other Carolina is Ahead.”

Manufacturing was credited with much of that improvement, leading the state’s recovery by adding 28,000 jobs over the past year.

“All sorts of manufacturing jobs are coming here,” said USC economist Joey Von Nessen, adding, as a result, "We’re seeing improving economic conditions across the state."

The numbers are good news for Gov. Nikki Haley, whose approval rating was at 34.5 percent, according to a Winthrop Poll released in December. Republicans insist, however, that subsequent internal polls show her tracking much better.

Haley has made job creation the top priority of her administration, and pundits have said the number of big announcements, led by tire manufacturing, has buoyed her reputation at home as a job creator, while her book tour is ingratiating her with the national media.

“I never knew I loved tires so much,” she said at last week’s Michelin announcement.

If only it was so easy to send our present governor to live elsewhere, I think several hundred thousand of us might spring for a quartet of tires to help her on her way.

In an interview with The State last week, Haley credited her fierce opposition to unions – “we have to keep pushing them out” – and the state’s work force and incentives for the successes.

When I see the word "union," I think of hardworking men and women. In this regard, Haley is absolutely correct: By pushing hardworking men and women away from the table, by keeping hardworking men and women away from the American Dream, she guarantees that corporate masters continue to reign supreme in her state.

But that doesn't make us a democracy, does it? It doesn't even make us a republic. It makes us fascist state. I recall that one of the first things dictators like to do upon seizing control is prohibiting the rights of hardworking men and women to organize themselves.

In fact, I think it was 79 years ago today that the new chancellor of Germany banned union organizing in his country.

The world decided he was a dictator.

What sort of tires do you think a dictator would buy for his own ride?

Pure speculation, of course, but I imagine they'd be tires manufactured with minimal environmental regulations and cheap labor in the best possible business climate.

Welcome to South Carolina, Where the Rubber Meets the Road.

Is Ware Shoals cutting educators' pay?

A note was published last week in the Greenwood Index-Journal about a proposal to cut educators' salaries to help balance the local district's budget, but I haven't heard whether the issue has been resolved, or how.

This was the original note, by reporter Erin Owens:

Ware Shoals School District Board of Trustees discussed possible ways in which the district can cut its budget for the 2012-13 school year during its meeting Monday.

Though the state's budget has not yet been set, school districts throughout the state could potentially see a decrease in funding should the current state budget pass. To make up for the losses, Ware Shoals discussed raising millage and reducing pay for retirees in the district, though no official decisions were made Monday.

"This is just an exercise in frustration right now, because we have such little information and it's my understanding that we won't get any more information until June," Superintendent Fay Sprouse said.

Sprouse said the district is eligible to make a 3.2 percent increase in millage in the county, which would affect mainly businesses and rental properties. Sprouse said a 3.2 percent millage increase would not generate a significant amount of money, but could help the district. Board members will consider the millage increase and discuss it further next month.

Cutting pay for retired district employees was another option discussed during the meeting. Sprouse said the district has six full-time retiree employees and two part-time, who are currently paid at the 11-year experience level on the pay scale. About three years ago, the retired employees' salary was decreased from the highest experience level to the mid-experience level. Decreasing retiree pay further to the zero experience level next year would save about $81,000 for the district, and would be a 20 to 25 percent salary cut for the employees.

"We value our retirees for their commitment to the district and for their expertise," Sprouse said. "But we also have to make sure we take care of those who are not retirees and that we are able to maintain our budget. We want them to continue working for us for a fair wage, but we have to weigh it in light of all the other things we've had to endure."

In other words, retirees who are collecting their meager retirement benefits while continuing to teach, in order to make ends meet, should learn to eat less to cut back on their grocery bills, turn up the thermostat to consume less electricity during the coming summer months, and make fewer trips to the doctor's office to save on gas.

Equalization schools highlighted in Charleston

Having served briefly on the United States Supreme Court, Governor Jimmy Byrnes foresaw in 1951 that a number of low-level federal lawsuits would likely make their way to the nation's highest court within a few years and, given the Court's composition, might result in an order striking down the fifty-year-old "separate but equal" principle in public accommodations.

Byrnes made no secret of his thinking, and he pushed our state legislature toward a Hail Mary strategy: Adopt a massive tax increase to fund the building of hundreds of new schools, to illustrate to the Court that, at least in South Carolina, "separate but equal" was still a viable concept and should be maintained.

He said so in an address to the South Carolina Education Association's annual state conference within a few weeks of his inauguration.

The tax increase passed, the schools were built, but the Court issued its famous ruling in Brown v Board of Education anyway, ordering the integration of public accommodations, including public schools.

Sunday's edition of the Post and Courier of Charleston featured the results of Byrnes's strategy, the so-called equalization schools built in the 1950s, thanks to the work of a graduate student.

Rebekah Dobrasko stumbled upon a piece of relatively unexplored South Carolina history while working on her master’s degree in public history.

She learned the state passed its first general sales tax in 1951 to fund “equalization” schools. This statewide initiative was designed to improve black public schools as a demonstration of its commitment to separate but equal. The state wanted to avoid integrating its racially segregated facilities.

More than 700 new schools were built during the 1950s, but Dobrasko could find little research on these schools or what became of them.

She focused on Charleston County’s equalization schools for her master’s thesis and discovered that some were slated to be demolished.

Dobrasko alerted city officials about the history behind one building slated to be torn down, and her advocacy has led to a first-of-its-kind exhibit being planned for the campus of Charleston Progressive Academy.

School leaders will create the state’s first public display on equalization schools, and the public will have a chance to decide what should be included.

“It’s a chance to tell this story,” Dobrasko said. “It’s a part of our history that’s not the most pleasant, but it’s still something that shaped the education landscape today.”
Building equalization

The state’s equalization schools were built or renovated between 1951 and 1960 as part of the state’s response to the Briggs v. Elliott school desegregation lawsuit. That case originally accused Clarendon County officials of refusing to uphold the law’s requirement that segregated facilities be equal.

Within the first six years of the equalization program, the state nearly doubled the number of accredited black high schools from 80 to 145 in 1957.

South Carolina was one of three states — the other two were Georgia and Mississippi — to give money for school equalization in an attempt to prevent integration. Their efforts would be for naught when the nation’s highest court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that black students must be allowed to sit alongside their white peers.

As part of the equalization school effort, Charleston would receive $6.2 million to renovate, build or equip 46 schools. The majority of the funds went toward black school renovation and construction; black students received new schools first, but the money also funded white-only schools.

Dobrasko became interested in equalization schools during one of her graduate classes at the University of South Carolina. The class took regular trips to Charleston, so she decided to look further at the equalization schools in the county.

She used her Charleston-focused thesis to later create a website on the issue. She heard from residents across the state, and she expanded her work to include schools outside the Lowcountry.

Dobrasko now works for the state Historic Preservation Office, and her job as a supervisor of compliance, tax incentives and surveys has nothing to do with equalization schools.

Still, when she heard about the demolition of Memminger Elementary, an equalization school for white students, she felt compelled to write an email that evolved into a promise of a new public exhibit.
Preserving history

Bill Lewis, the district’s chief operations officer, said the school district can’t restore all the buildings built in that era. Of the equalization schools, the former Courtenay School, now home to Charleston Progressive Academy, has some of the most distinctive architecture, and its close proximity to the Visitor Center and downtown makes it an ideal site for tourists, he said.

Lewis is not sure what the exhibit will look like or include, but he said it likely will be housed in an outdoor courtyard and accessible to the public. It might have maps and plaques as well as photos, but he said that will depend on public input.

The school also might be able to feature some items in its library, but no decisions have been made, he said. The school’s construction budget has about $50,000 set aside for the exhibit.

“If we don’t collect these (artifacts) soon, the memories will be lost,” he said.

Dobrasko said she wants the public — particularly residents who attended or lived in communities near the equalization schools — to share their thoughts on what this exhibit could be. She encouraged residents to bring yearbooks, photos, graduation programs and their stories about whether the schools were important to the area; what the schools were like when they opened; and how they affected the community.

Some of the community’s leading voices on diversity issues — such as the College of Charleston’s Avery Research Center and the Charleston NAACP — weren’t aware of the exhibit and said they haven’t been part of the conversation so far. Both groups said they’d like to know more.

Aurora Harris, diversity programs manager for the Preservation Society of Charleston, said she’s been involved in the planning and has helped publicize the upcoming public hearings.

“It’s really telling a part of the story that a lot of people aren’t aware of,” she said.

Bernard Powers, a College of Charleston history professor who’s serving as chief historian on the strategic plan for the International African American Museum, wasn’t aware of the proposed exhibit either but said these schools are an important part of the civil rights movement.

“There is the era of segregation … and the other side is a period of desegregation or integration,” he said. “But in between, there were at least sporadic efforts to forestall desegregation and integration by making separate really equal. And the (equalization) schools are probably the best example of this that you can possibly come up with.”

Bamberg trustees address lunch money problems

I can understand the need to allow students to charge their meals. Children in poor, rural counties are likely the children of under-employed South Carolinians.

If Governor Nikki Haley finds a spare minute in her day -- I know it must be crowded with national media requests and fashion photographers, all clamoring for an audience with her grace -- she might give some thought to improving the plight of children in her native county.

For now, trustees of the Bamberg school district are left dealing with how to collect lunch money and how to keep the school lunch program afloat with meager resources.

The news comes from reporter Jerry Halmon of the Advertizer-Herald:

There is “a significant problem” in this district collecting lunch money; Bamberg School District One Superintendent Phyllis Schwarting told trustee board members at their March meeting. In offering an administrative rule to go along with policy that is presently in place, the Superintendent noted that by policy students in middle school and elementary school are allowed to charge up to $10 only for meals.

Now students are charging up to $25 worth of meals and are receiving bills of $100 or $200 in the middle, elementary and primary schools. “This has created a significant cash deficit for the food service,” Schwarting commented, adding “we do have to look at something to help us.”

It was noted that typically from $ 8,000 to $ 10,000 is owed to the food service program (which is supposed to be self sufficient) each year. Profits earned in the food service program go to the district to cover part of the $180,000 it (the food lunch program) owed the district a few years ago, but has “come down some the last few years.”

The Superintendent stated the district needed to look at lowering the amount a student could owe for meals to $10, noting that most people could come up with $10 more so than $25 or $50. Board Chair Rita Sease wanted to know if the same policy would apply to adults as well as students, noting that she did not think adults and students should be treated the same.

Superintendent Schwarting said she will bring back a separate policy to address adult lunches, noting that she did not think any changes in the policy could be implemented until next year.

Supreme Court upholds public education as a right*

Next time I hear an American politician declare that we should be more like India, I'm going to shout AMEN.

Tucked away in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal last week was this nugget by Tripti Lahiri and Diksha Sahni:

India's Supreme Court upheld a law Thursday that supporters say can transform access to education for hundreds of millions of poor children but critics claim infringes on the rights of private schools to admit whom they want.

The Right to Education law, which went into effect in April 2010, requires private schools to give one quarter of their places to low-income children. Two judges of the three-judge bench that was hearing the challenge by over 30 petitioners found that the law did not violate the constitutional rights of those running private schools.

However, they carved out an exemption for private "minority" institutions, such as those run by religious groups, finding that the act "infringes the fundamental freedom" of such schools.

The third judge, however, found entirely in favor of the petitioners, writing in a dissenting order that to compel any private schools "to admit 25% of the students on the fee structure determined by the State, is nothing but an invasion as well as appropriation of the rights guaranteed to them."

The new law makes education free and compulsory for children between the ages of 6 and 14, and requires schools, even private schools that don't receive any public funding, to set aside places for low-income children, for which they will be reimbursed at rates that cannot exceed spending per child in government schools.

What does this mean?

It means, for one thing, that India's Supreme Court is the mirror-opposite of our own: Two-thirds of its panel agreed that the Indian Constitution guarantees public education as a right to every child, thus upholding a law passed by India's government two years ago, lovingly named the Right to Education Act. That law required every private school in India to hold 25 percent of its seats available to non-paying children.

Only one-third of the panel dissented, arguing that private schools shouldn't be forced to take students they don't want.

Can you imagine if the right to exclusivity were taken away from private and parochial schools in America? It would take away our segregation academies' whole reason for being.

India's public education system is in shambles, plagued by teacher absenteeism and meager resources, and the law was designed to try to ensure that all children have access to learning. The particular provision about private school admissions also had a broader social goal: to minimize the class and caste divisions that persist in Indian society despite years of economic gains.

India's education minister said he was happy with the court's decision.

"What the court has given us today is clarity on the issue so that all controversies are set to rest," Kapil Sabil told the news channel NDTV. "Our vision of education moves forward."

But private schools opposed the provision, saying it placed an excessive financial burden on them and that educational standards would go down.

Damodar Prasad Goyal, the president of the Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan, the lead petitioner challenging the law, said: "The bench recognized that unaided private schools have the right to run education institutions freely and without any interference." But he added, "a section of law recognizes that there are certain reasonable restrictions on the functioning."

Usha Albuquerque, who heads an educational consultancy called Careers Smart, said the schools' reluctance to implement was a reflection of India's deep class divide.

"The class and economic divisions are too stark and thus a lot of schools also opposed" the mixed-income experiment, she said.

Did you catch that?

The individuals and corporate entities who opposed the public education law argued against the law based on "class and economic divisions."

In short, the wealthy do not want to share space, air and resources with the poor. Same as here!

Fortunately for Indian children, their national Constitution guarantees free public education as a right. Ours, sadly, does not.

Another Indian media outlet reported the news this way:

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of the Right to Education Act, 2009, which mandates 25% free seats to poor children up to the age of 14 in government and private aided and unaided schools (but not in unaided minority institutions) uniformly across the country.

A child who is denied the right to access education is not only [being] deprived of his right to live with dignity, he is also [being] deprived of his right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,” the court said.

By a majority view, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice SH Kapadia and Justice KS Radhakrishnan and Justice Swantanter Kumar said the act will apply uniformly to government and unaided private schools except unaided private minority schools.

“The 2009 Act seeks to remove all those barriers, including financial and psychological barriers, which a child belonging to the weaker section and disadvantaged group has to face while seeking admission,” read the judgment.

Wow. A child who is denied the right to access education is not only deprived of his right to live with dignity, but also deprived of his right to freedom of speech and expression. What a powerful declaration.

We'll never see anything so clear and true and right in our own country, and isn't that sad?

The news was so important that the BBC picked it up, too:

A law that makes education a fundamental right and reserves 25% of school seats for poor children is valid, India's Supreme Court has said.

The court ruling follows petitions by some private schools that complained the law violated their autonomy and was a drain on resources.

India's minister for human resource development, Kapil Sibal, has expressed his "happiness" over the court order.

Millions of children aged six-14 do not attend school in India.

Under the law, every child between those ages can demand free, primary school education.
...
Critics complain that schools run by both federal and state governments are poorly run and badly managed, although several government schemes are running to attract more children to schools.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said enough funds would be made available to ensure that children had access to education.

He said the government was committed "to ensuring that all children irrespective of gender and social category have access to education".

Recalling his own childhood, Mr Singh, a qualified economist, said: "I read under the dim light of a kerosene lamp. I am what I am totally because of education."

"So I want that the light of education should reach to all," he added.

"Enough funds will be made available," India's leader said, because "the light of education should reach to all."

Why couldn't it have been America who made that declaration?

Darlington finds cheaper bus fuel solution

Again, a good idea comes from the Pee Dee region.

While lawmakers look for ways to privatize the state's school bus system and turn another part of public education into a profit-making enterprise, the leaders in Darlington County's school system are innovating and solving problems within the public school system.

Which seems to prove the old notion once again: Empower professionals to solve problems, and they'll do it.

From the Florence Morning News online:

The Darlington County School District is going into the oil business.

Not crude oil, cooking oil.

District officials announced a plan Monday to convert used cooking oil gleaned from the district’s 19 cafeterias into “biodiesel” fuel that will be used to power DCSD activity buses. Those are buses that ferry students to athletic events and other extracurricular events, not the familiar yellow buses used for daily transportation.

The plan helps the district both go green and save some green. Recycling the old oil is good for the environment and because the district can make the fuel for about 75 cents a gallon, it’ll save almost a dollar per gallon in fuel costs. The district would save more, of course, if it could burn pure biodiesel, but that’s not recommended by engine manufacturers due to biodiesel’s increased viscosity. Biodiesel fuel needs to be burned in an 80-20 mix (80 percent regular diesel).

Still, district officials said they’ll save up to $17,000 per year, with regular diesel at its current price of around $4 per gallon.

Dr. Rainey Knight, Darlington School District Superintendent of Education, said she is excited about the innovative qualities of the program.

“I think it’s really neat,” said Knight. “We know it’s saving us money and we’re going green with it and we want to take it to the next level. Buses are expensive so if we can help reduce those costs and reduce the cost to our schools that’s our ultimate goal.”

The district said that it’s the only school district in the state that’s using biodiesel in its school buses.

And why is that? Why can't other school districts accomplish the same thing, and realize the same level of savings?

Here's a suggestion for the folks in Darlington: Ask the professionals who made this innovation a reality to draft a summary of their process, and post it on the Darlington public school district's website. Email it to other transportation officials across the state. Trumpet this document to everyone who will read it.

Not only will Darlington get tremendous credit for innovation, but the state's public school districts will benefit from the increased savings.

The whole project was made possible by a one-time grant from the United States Department of Energy in the amount of $40,000. The district will use the funds to pay for setting up its own “refinery.” No bus engine modifications are necessary.

See what happens when we allow federal funds to get into our state?

Are more of these grants available?

If not, this is a perfect opportunity for Darlington's legislative delegation to propose a pilot program to legislative allies, and get several of these refineries set up throughout the region and across the state. What a boon to local economic development!

The National Biodiesel Board defines biodiesel as a clean burning alternative fuel produced from domestic, renewable resources such as plant oils, animal fats and used cooking oil. Biodiesel contains no petroleum, but it can be blended at any level with petroleum diesel to create a biodiesel blend. It’s in use by a number of organizations and businesses around the country. The key component for most is access to a ready supply of used cooking oil.

Darlington County School District Transportation Director Eddi McKenzie came up with the idea for starting the program in the DCSD. McKenzie has been using biodiesel in his personal vehicle for three years.

God bless this man, and someone give him an award today.

“When I saw how well the biodiesel worked in my own personal vehicle and how much money we saved as a family, I thought it would be worth exploring for the school buses as well,” he said.

McKenzie said that some people have expressed concern about the chemicals involved in making the biodiesel but he said there’s nothing to be worried about.

“When we make it we feed the chemicals, such as lye, into the processor individually and the machine mixes them together,” McKenzie said. “By themselves they are not dangerous. It’s a pretty safe and easy process.”

The oil processor is about the size of an industrial-sized ice machine. McKenzie and company used part of the grant to install some solar panels that will help power the machine – yet another tip of the green hat.

Darlington has a budget of some $60,000 per year for activity bus fuel, so the new fuel will save nearly a third of that.

“You figure $17,000 saved each year over a five year period will add up,” said McKenzie.

That's money that can be converted to salaries to hire more educators in Darlington.

The district could save more if it burned biodiesel in its regular school buses (assuming it could produce enough fuel to do that). But it’s prohibited from doing so because the state owns those buses.

Legislation is currently before the House and Senate that would change that, but for the time being those buses are off limits.

Why, South Carolina?

Why does it take so long to move a single step in the right direction, but we're ever ready to race backwards in fifth gear?

Lottery proves to be a regressive tax in South Carolina

Columnist Dwayne Green, writing in the Charleston City Paper, took up recently an issue that catches my attention from time to time, the evidence that poor people who play the lottery the most get the least benefit from it, directly and indirectly.

Green writes, persuasively,

What if the S.C. General Assembly announced a new tax that would be paid primarily by the state's poor and minority citizens?

And that the majority of the money raised would not be used to help failing schools or aid students from impoverished backgrounds, but instead be used to provide scholarships to college-bound high school seniors, regardless of their financial needs?

To lessen the sting of such a seemingly unfair system of revenue collection, the payment of the tax would be 100 percent voluntary.

How enthusiastic would the average South Carolina citizen be for such a plan? If you could rate that enthusiasm on scale of one to zero, I'd say zero, unless the plan also promised participants a one in a 100 million chance of becoming a millionaire.

Apparently, this remote chance of becoming instantly rich is all that it takes for people to line up to pay the State of South Carolina hundreds of millions in revenue that they would not otherwise pay. This is the reality of the S.C. Educational Lottery, which for fiscal year 2010-2011 exceeded $1 billion in sales, something that it has only managed to do two other times in its decade-long history.

Championed by Democrats and former Gov. Jim Hodges, the lottery has become a regressive tax in the hands of a Republican-dominated legislature that decides which programs the lottery will fund. Data on lottery ticket sales show that poor citizens participate in the lottery much more than more affluent citizens do, but benefit decidedly less.

Since the S.C. Education Lottery began conducting demographic studies in 2002 — the first year of the lottery — those studies have underscored the fact that it operates as a regressive tax.

In 2008, a survey was conducted of South Carolina residents by the Alpharetta, Ga.-based firm Research Inc., the results of which were reported by the Arkansas News Bureau website when Arkansas hired South Carolina's former lottery director, Ernie Passailaigue. Although people in households earning under $40,000 comprised 28 percent of South Carolina's population, the survey found they accounted for 31.3 percent of its lottery players and 53.4 percent of its frequent players.

Meanwhile, a 2003 state lottery study conducted by the Columbia-based Market Search Corporation also found that 53 percent of all South Carolina residents had played the lottery as of that year, with 62 percent of African Americans having played, as opposed to 49 percent of Caucasians. That same study found that although the majority of state lottery players were white, the incidence of frequent lottery play was disproportionately higher among African Americans and players with household incomes between $10,000 and $50,000 (55-61 percent).

The overwhelming support of the lottery by South Carolina's poorer residents would not be as problematic if the majority of the funding went back to those communities with the highest need. However, the state lottery commission reports that from Jan. 7, 2002, through June 30, 2010, 73.36 percent, or $2,276,017,843, of the General Assembly's appropriations from the Education Lottery Account supported scholarships, grants, and other higher education programs, while the state Department of Education received 24.14 percent, or $549,949,126.

The college-bound recipients of these funds already have the benefit of excellent scholastic records, and they receive these funds regardless of their ability or inability to pay for college.

Despite its voluntary nature, there is no question that the S.C. Education lottery qualifies as a regressive tax since it imposes a greater burden on the poor than the rich, relative to resources. The continued participation in it can only be explained, in part, by an ignorance of the odds and where the money spent actually goes. That so many people buy in proves the old adage, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

Greenville News defends public employment penalties

Editors of the Greenville News praised today the legislature's move to raise public employees' required contributions to their retirement fund, calling it "not perfect" but "necessary."

Indeed, it's imperfect. It's also unnecessary, as lawmakers could have adopted -- could still amend themselves and adopt -- a host of alternative strategies, from raising sufficient revenue to address the state's obligations while holding public workers harmless, to restoring all of the positions that have been eliminated in recent years, which would infuse the retirement system with a wave of new contributions from new, potentially younger, employees.

Or, the legislature could have exempted all current employees from higher costs, but established higher contribution levels for all prospective employees.

Of course, lawmakers could have done something even more honorable and committed themselves to giving public employees decent wages and salaries.

This being South Carolina, I reckon it's too much to ask. We have corporate tax breaks to protect and private school vouchers to fund. It's a matter of priorities.

For the editors of the News, the priority is protection of the state's bond rating, not protection of public workers.

The fix is needed because the S.C. Retirement System fund faces an unfunded liability of at least $13 billion. That liability would double to $26 billion by 2041, according to a recent report in The State newspaper.

Such rapidly increasing liabilities would jeopardize pensions for workers who are depending on the state pension fund to maintain their standard of living in retirement.

The unfunded liability could have an impact on state taxpayers, too. If the state is unable to meet obligations to retirees -- or if it appears those obligations will go unmet -- South Carolina could lose its much-coveted AAA credit rating. That would lead to higher interest rates if and when the state borrows money, and those higher interest rates would lead to higher taxes for everyone in the state.

So when public employees -- many of whom qualify for and receive public assistance due to their low incomes -- pay this additional penalty for the privilege of being a public worker and hoping for a small pension in their retirement, they should feel good about it. After all, they're paying more so that the rest of us won't be bothered.

It's a great burden they carry, I'm sure, but that's why we have an institutionalized and permanent underclass in South Carolina -- to do the work of the wealthy, and to protect them from feeling any pain.

Say, is it still true that the tax on purchases of yachts is capped in South Carolina at $300? It's highway robbery; I don't see why the yacht-sales tax couldn't be cut in half, or eliminated altogether. But that's a note for another day.

These are not easy decisions. But poor decisions and the economic collapse of 2008 have put the state pension fund -- and pension funds in many states -- in a significant hole. That unfunded liability would have significant consequences if it was not fixed. For starters, state employees might not receive the benefits they have been promised. That needed to be addressed.

Great points, but let's pause for a moment on the reference to "poor decisions;" they deserve some attention, and not to be glossed over.

South Carolina has enjoyed some boom years recently, when times were so spectacularly good that we could afford to cut taxes here, cut taxes there, give corporate incentives to locate in our state, give a passel of new corporate tax breaks, and still achieve our highest priorities -- among them, to weaken public schools, cut public employment rolls, reduce public services, and make the poor suffer even worse.

Hey, what's good governance if we can't achieve our priorities?

I have to believe that if, among all that tax-cutting and tax-breaking and incentivizing during the good times, our lawmakers had also invested a teensy bit more in the state retirement system, we might not have wound up in a precarious position as we have. I learned about compound interest in the fifth grade, so it mustn't take much brain power to understand that a tiny increase in investment, when invested appropriately, yields great rewards over the long term.

Poor decisions, indeed, if our legislators didn't attend to their responsibilities year after year after year after year when they could have honored their obligations to the state's workers.

If this bill passes the Senate and is signed by the governor, lawmakers will have been successful in implementing reasonable changes that will preserve benefits for public employees and protect taxpayers from the potential default of the retirement fund. Of course, the state needs to continue watching the fund's performance, and it needs to ensure that further adjustments are not needed.

God forbid that additional adjustments will be needed. We'll have to re-institute poorhouses in which to lodge our public employees when they're evicted from their rental houses, and when their public assistance benefits finally expire.

Other states are facing the same situation as South Carolina and some of them have begun exploring a move toward the 401(k)-style retirement funds that many private-sector workers rely on.

Oh, that's a fine idea. Let's leave our public workers' retirement benefits at the mercy of the stock market and its corporate master, who have just proven since 2008 that they answer to no authority but themselves, and they respect nothing but their own profits.

If that's our best option, we might as well send letters to our public employees advising them to work until they die, as it's the only way to ensure a little income through that eventuality -- with an emphasis on little.

Editors of the News seem more than a little enamored of this notion:

Legislators should at least study such an idea to determine if it's a long-term option for the state's retirement fund. The recent changes, however, could buy some time to see if more dramatic changes would be needed.

After all, public employment is public service, and public service is about sacrifice. Who better to demonstrate sacrifice than our public employees?

It is not unreasonable to ask state employees to make some sacrifices to ensure their retirement remains stable rather than asking taxpayers, many of whom are seeing less stable benefits, to foot the entire bill.

Especially -- it goes without saying -- our wealthiest citizens, who struggle already with the exorbitant sales taxes on their mansions, acreages and yachts. Damn it all, the line must be drawn somewhere!

That's especially true in an era when private-sector workers are being asked to get by with less help from their employer for retirement because of wage cuts or freezes, frozen benefits, and change-overs to defined contribution retirement plans.

Let's not stop with that short list; by all means, let's add because of statutes that prevent private-sector workers from bargaining collectively with their employers.

If we're going to kick the proletariat in the teeth, make sure to get all the way to the ones in the back, the wisdom teeth. Anything worth doing is worth doing well.

These changes are fair, sensible and deserve to be passed. Then lawmakers need to watch carefully to ensure the pension fund can stay on the path to solvency while continuing to provide promised benefits to the many retirees who will rely on this fund during their golden years.

Golden years.

One laughs to keep from crying.

Haley ignores education questions, promotes book

A huge thank-you to Paul Bowers of the Charleston City Paper for catching Governor Nikki Haley's book-promotion gimmick on Facebook yesterday and documenting the interaction. If such things happen again, we should share the word as quickly as possible, to get as many interested South Carolinians as possible involved in asking questions.

That is, the ones who are Haley's Facebook friends.

Here are some highlights from Bowers's report:

Gov. Nikki Haley opened the floodgates on her Facebook page Sunday afternoon, announcing that she would be riding in the car for a while and would be available to answer people's questions and comments.

Predictably, some of the questions were rhetorical in nature, and there was a rush of back-patting from her fans.

This is reportedly the only sort of interaction allowed by Haley on her Facebook page. Offer critique, and you're unfriended.

Haley also worked in a pitch for her upcoming memoir, Can't Is Not an Option, which is set for release April 3 (and by the way, if you're interested, she will be signing copies of the book on April 9 at 6 p.m. at Blue Bicycle Books).

Great head's-up to all those in the Charleston area who may want to organize themselves for the purpose of exercising free speech rights and communicating some messages to the state's chief executive. That's Blue Bicycle Books, April 9, 6 p.m.

But some of the legitimate questions got illuminating answers. Here are a few of the questions, followed by Haley's responses:

• Do you have interest to become a GOP senator in the future? I have no desire right now to run for US Senate. I am perfectly happy being Governor of the best state in the country!

Notice the qualifier "right now." Ugh. Guess that means Lindsey's terms are numbered.

But also notice the generic "best state in the country." Not the "state where children are treated best, and domestic violence is non-existent, and rural communities thrive, and public education is best supported," because, unfortunately, none of those qualifiers would be true. Good that she went with "best state in the country."

• Carolina or Clemson? Go Tigers!

• It seems almost daily here in SC where a parent or person is being arrested for child abuse. What can be done to make longer sentences for child abusers? Contact your legislators to push for tougher standards on child abuse.

Ah, the old "contact your legislators" dodge.

I'm the governor, here. Passing laws against child abuse is not part of governor-ing. And why bring up child abuse in a Facebook chat anyway? Don't be such a downer. Geez. I'm trying to sell a book, for Pete's sake.

• How's the SC tax reform coming along? The House did not include our tax reform in their budget. Please contact the Senate and remind them that it is your money.

Ooh, good one. Beat up on the House for not kowtowing to the Queen, and the Senate for not acting fast enough. Classy.

• Governor Haley, serious question: How do you think other states should improve to be more competitive for jobs? Right to work state's [sic] and fair and balanced tax structures are the key to job growth and retention.

Anytime [sic] has to appear in text, it's not a good sign. But look at her, selling the old "right-to-work-for-less" ideology like its ice cream: Poor people, be happy with the meager pittances you get for your hard work; ignore your hunger by imagining the taste of ripe strawberries in your mouth!

• What can we do to bring good clean prosperous industry to Williamsburg Co? The way we help Winnsboro is the way we help every other part of our state, we have to seriously reform our tax code, increase educational options, strengthen our workforce training so that we match those unemployed with companies that need jobs, and continue to reduce regulations on businesses. all of the things we work on everyday [sic]. thanks!

Did Haley really mean to suggest that Winnsboro is in Williamsburg County? I just re-read the question, and the question definitely asked how industry could be brought to Williamsburg County, yet Haley's response was about Winnsboro, in Fairfield County, a full 111 miles northwest of Williamsburg's county seat.

It must be a right-wing-governor thing. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin didn't know that the head of government in Great Britain is the prime minister, either, or that "the Fed" refers to the Federal Reserve System, which regulates American monetary policy. Here in South Carolina, our governor doesn't know Winnsboro from Williamsburg County.

That's our governor!

• Just want to know...have you and the kids seen The Hunger Games??? We have not seen The Hunger Games but can't wait!

I haven't seen the film either, but according to the synopses readily available on the internet, the Haley family needn't wait to see "The Hunger Games," or even go to a theater to see it. They can see the film's basic themes played out just by taking a leisurely drive through their city and state.

• I live in NC and am very impressed with your jobs creation. Do you have any plans to meet with Pat McCrory when he is the new NC governor to discuss how SC is bringing jobs to the Southeast? I have already been campaigning some with Pat McCrory and look forward to partnering with him to better the Carolinas.

So in addition to flitting about various northeastern states to campaign for her favored presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, and in addition to meeting Georgia's governor in secret in Augusta to discuss their plans for the port at Savannah, Haley has also found time to cross our northern border and meddle in the affairs of North Carolina.

Hopefully, while she's in North Carolina, she might ask questions about how that state achieved and has maintained a respectable education budget during the past forty years, even paying its teachers at the national average -- way better than the tired old "$300 above the Southeastern average."

• What are your thoughts on open carry? I believe SC is one of 6 states that doesnt allow it. As a CWP holder myself, I have and would support open carry laws in SC.

• Why is unemployment so broken, I have had people steal from us and then get benefits. Why can't SC at least drug test people that want or need assistance? I support drug testing FTP receive unemployment benefits.

Saints be praised. I wonder how long our governor has been packing heat?

This is why the rest of Western civilization stares at us with their mouths open. It's not awe, it's disbelief.

The questions that Haley chose not to answer were also noteworthy. Here are a few of the queries she left hanging:

• You're doing a great job Nikki! One comment though: our son has special needs (verbal apraxia) and we've recently set up our education plan with our Greenville County School District. They could not provide a special ed classroom for him because of the high criteria, even though he is non-verbal and cannot communicate with the students and staff at his private preschool. There is a gap for children with only communication needs that needs to be filled, and soon!

• What can you do to help the FIRST robotics teams of the state...existing and up and coming...fund their season. Nick Zais actually did show up at our competition this weekend and got to see what we do with our kids first hand. The problem is teams are struggling from lack of funding. This is too good of a program to let slip away.

• Are you a supporter of TFA [Teach For America] and other programs like it, seeking to get the best teachers/leaders in front of ALL classrooms, no matter the ZIP code?

• Why does your budget call for more cuts in spending for education? I'm an educator and with all these cuts on top of local and federal bureaucracy it is making it harder and harder to want to stay teaching.

• Do you have any plans to be more supportive of the teachers and the law enforcement in our state? The retirement bill that is being passed doesn't appear to be showing any support. Taking more money, lowering the benefits and extending the time to work. We haven't gotten any pay raises in a quite a while and the government is talking about taking more from us. The pay raises that were talked about a month ago won't amount to anything if this retirement bill passes. What is your explanation for this?

Crickets.

So let's review the highlights.

Talking about her upcoming book? Great.

Leaving the state to campaign for wingnuts elsewhere? Great.

Supporting Clemson? Great.

Promoting a new film about killing the children of the 99 percent for the entertainment of the one percent? Great.

Burnishing her chick-with-a-gun credentials? Great.

Denigrating poor people who rely on our social safety net for subsistence? Great.

Tightening penalties for child abuse? Ugh: Pass the buck to lawmakers.

Tax relief? Great AND pass the buck to lawmakers -- a two-fer!

South Carolina geography? Ugh: Pivot to the talking points. Who cares that Winnsboro isn't near Williamsburg County? Both start with Dubya!

But anything having to do with addressing parents' concerns about public education, and service for their children, and protecting innovative school programs, and supporting teachers and other public employees?

Next.

Which is precisely what many of us are saying about Haley's place in the line of South Carolina's governors.

Parents defending public schools offend right wing

Here's the good that has come from this post: Anyone wishing to communicate their support for traditional public schools in South Carolina are armed with a great set of talking points!

As I understand it, a family moved to a small town in South Carolina because of the "notoriety" of its public schools. (No, I don't understand that reference, either.) And when they arrived, they joined the local PTA and happily signed up to receive the PTA's email updates.

But now that the PTA is expressing its displeasure at so-called "school choice" legislation, the family is offended that the PTA is disseminating such information to their email distribution list.

Rational reaction: Delete the email; ask to be removed from the email distribution list; stop baking cupcakes for the ubiquitous PTA fundraisers that make up for budget cuts by lawmakers.

This family's decision: Disseminate PTA's talking points against the anti-public education legislation to an even wider audience, including the readers of this little blog.

For which I say, thanks!

As a mother of four, the first of which entered public school last year, keeping up with my children’s education is extremely important to me. I’ve heard the stories of children fearing the end of the world due to global warming and seen the history books that exclude any Republican or Conservative from the important events that have shaped our country. My husband and I moved to a small town in South Carolina due in part to the notoriety of the schools. I immediately joined the PTA, looking forward to communicating and working with other parents to help our children achieve the high standards to which we hold them accountable.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, this PTA had an agenda and used its access to my email address to push that agenda.

So here come the good parts. Take note:

Action needed
Please contact your House representative by 1 p.m., Tuesday, March 20, 2012 and urge him to vote against the tuition tax credit/voucher bill, House bill 4894 (see contact information below).

Background

Having completed the budget, the full House may take up the tuition tax credit/voucher bill this week. To see a longer summary of the bill from the March 14 Day At The Capitol handout, click here. Basically, the bill would:

Provide a state income tax deduction of up to $4,000 for tuition (fees for attending the school and school-related transportation) paid by a parent or legal guardian for their child or ward to attend an independent school defined as a school, other than a public school.

Provide a state income tax deduction of up to $1,000 for tuition (fees for attending the school and school-related transportation) paid by a parent or legal guardian for their child or ward to attend a public school outside the child’s or ward’s resident school district.

Provide a state income tax deduction of up to $2,000 per home school student per year for instruction related expenditures.

Provide a dollar-for-dollar credit on state income tax, insurance premium taxes or bank license fees for contributions made to non-profit scholarship funding organizations that would provide “grants” to low-income students in public schools to attend an qualifying independent school.

Here's where the parent realizes that the PTA actually has a mission, which includes strengthening the public schools attended by its members' children.

After providing this fairly benign review of some of the specifics related to H.4894, the email turned into what amounted to a Democrat party spam email as the PTA laid out the position echoed by the South Carolina School Board Association (SCSBA) which apparently the school PTA is on board with.

Well, I would have phrased it differently: "...with which the school PTA is apparently on board." But when there's a bill on the floor to dismantle public education, who's worrying about terminal prepositions?

"Democrat party spam email"? Really?

A word of historical context. In the past eight years or so, attempts have been made to pass voucher legislation in South Carolina roughly nine hundred times. And each time, it's been defeated in the House of Representatives which, during that same period, has had a group of Democrats commonly referred to as the House Minority. "Minority" means "not the majority."

For a bill to be defeated, the House minority relies upon a good number of votes from members of the House Majority -- in this case, Republicans.

So, if a good number of Republicans agree with Democrats that dismantling public schools is hardly a good idea, then the PTA may not actually be distributing "Democrat party spam email." Rather, it may be contributing to a dialogue that reflects mainstream South Carolinians' views on destroying public schools.

Further, unless I'm mistaken, the PTA is a fully autonomous body, made up of parents and educators who determine their own positions on legislative proposals. If a PTA opposes the destruction of public schools, it may be because the parents who live in a given community oppose that destruction. Hmm.

All right. Here, the parents discovers the state school boards association's position on destroying public schools:

Position statement

SCSBA opposes state or federally-mandated efforts to directly or indirectly subsidize elementary or secondary private, religious or home schools with public funds.

The smoking gun! And the parent expresses her outrage at being informed thusly:

After giving contact info for representatives, the PTA helpfully provides talking points for any parents who don’t have any idea why they should care about this.

Okay, folks, here are the talking points. Cut, paste, distribute freely and thank our offended parent later:

Talking points

How can the General Assembly consider a bill that would result in a loss of $37 million in state revenues (just in the first year alone) when:

public schools have had their funding cut by more than $700 million;

the base student cost is presently at $1,880 per student but should be at $2,790 per student;

and fully funding the BSC would require some $600 million

the state cannot meet existing obligation to adequately fund vital state agency and services, including law enforcement, healthcare, local government funds, etc.

Tuition tax credit/voucher programs are unaffordable, unaccountable to taxpayers and unproven.

The proposal is inconsistent with recent calls for comprehensive tax reforms, including the elimination of some sales and service tax exemptions by creating four more exemptions.

The proposal is inconsistent with conservative principles including the creation of a government entitlement program for private schoolers and home schoolers and grows government by adding new duties for the Department of Revenue and the Education Oversight Committee. Funding for public schools must be a top priority! Until we meet our financial commitment to public school students, there must be no consideration for a plan that would divert public tax dollars to private schools for tuition.

But there's more! Our angry parent erupts, "Even a sample message to send!" and gives us the sample message offered to PTA members to use in communicating with their lawmakers by email.

Sample message

Dear Representative :

I urge you to vote against the private school tuition tax credit/deduction/voucher bill, H.4894. The bill’s negative fiscal impact to the state’s general fund of $37 million is staggering when our state cannot meet its existing obligations to K-12 education and other vital state services, including local government funding. In addition to the significant funding cuts to education in recent years, the base student cost (BSC) under the Education Finance Act is presently at $1,880 per student when it should be $2,790 per student by state law. In fact, fully funding the BSC would require some $600 million.

Finally, lawmakers’ recent calls for the need to eliminate certain tax exemptions and loopholes and supported by businesses, citizens, and educators seems to contradict a proposal that would create yet another special-interest tax exemption through for paying tuition to a private school or for homeschooling with no accountability equivalent to the public schools. Another tax credit program would only add to the horribly unbalanced tax system already in existence in South Carolina.

I can't believe how much time and effort this offended parent has saved those of us who have been drafting talking points of our own, and laboring to craft our own messages to legislators.

Sadly, this parent didn't use the information; she lashed out instead, seeking retribution to those who would defend public schools in her community. She writes:

Immediately I wrote back to them, including the school principal and the local chairman of the Republican party, expecting quickly to receive an apology and a promise not to misuse the PTA email privileges again; or at the least a response from the Republican leader that he would look into the matter.

Apparently, however, the issue was so important that no one even bothered to email me back. While it’s never happened to me before, I am left to assume that inserting one’s personal political agenda into official school emails is so commonplace that it is unworthy of discussion. It was a big surprise for me personally. Our area in South Carolina is very red and our schools are among the best in the state.

Can you believe the nerve of these PTA parents, that they should want to preserve schools that "are among the best in the state"?

Surely, I thought, no one local would have a problem with people in other areas working to provide the best education for their children.

I must confess, the logic of this set of assertions escapes me: Our own local schools are excellent, therefore we must support the destruction of public schools elsewhere in South Carolina.

The parent goes on, and I'm almost embarrassed to include her further remarks. But, for your benefit, I will:

I’m not planning on taking my kids out their public school

Well, don't do anyone any favors, please. Follow your bliss where it leads.

but I fully support the right of other parents to choose a different option; and they shouldn’t have to pay for my children in addition to theirs. School Choice is something that people from both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on as it does nothing but promote competition for tax dollars and gives families much needed choices.

Respectfully, I think that most South Carolinians want precisely what this parent has: Well-funded public schools that benefit from the support of a healthy local tax base and engaged parents.

I’m fortunate that my kids attend a school that gets high marks, but many schools do not.

True, and we've been working on improving this for a while. A long while. Decades. Generations. Often against the opposition of a lot of narrow-minded and stingy lawmakers who believe some children don't deserve to learn.

Let’s stop rewarding them and focus on what’s best for the children: having options in education.

I think that if we were to commit to making all of South Carolina's public schools great, the options would resolve themselves.

AT&T sets its sights on education in SC

Uh-oh.

Another corporate giant has discovered that there are potentially billions of dollars to be made once South Carolina converts all of its public schools to private alternatives, and it's laying down a big, fat marker on those future profits.

From Midlands Biz comes the announcement:

As access to skilled workers becomes increasingly vital to the U.S. economy, AT&T is launching a quarter-billion-dollar campaign to help more students graduate from high school ready for careers and college, and to ensure the country is better prepared to meet global competition.

Let's be candid, shall we? No corporate behemoth gets into education for altruistic purposes; any semblance of humanity is wrenched from a corporate entity far before it reaches global proportions. When we get to this point, every move represents a step toward profit.

So the happy-talk about increasing high-school graduation rates is likely a subterfuge. I wager that someone, somewhere has divined that a telecommunications company will be perfectly positioned to benefit from a private-sector fund stream at some future date if it puts down roots now.

After all, why should Gates and Broad have all the fun? This is a pretty big pie, and there'll be plenty of lucre for everyone.

Therefore:

“Education is the key to unlock the future for young people and help them reach their potential,” said Pamela Lackey, President, South Carolina. “It will take all of us working together and supporting educators’ hard work to continue to improve graduation rates and preparedness for careers and college. American business has an enormous stake in the success of our students. It’s time to commit more innovation and resources to the task.”

According to a March 19, 2012 report by Civic Enterprises, the Everyone Graduates Center, America’s Promise Alliance and the Alliance for Excellent Education, South Carolina has seen a 8.1 percentage increase in 2009 graduation rates, compared with data from 2002.

AT&T Aspire, already among the most significant U.S. corporate educational initiatives with more than $100 million invested since 2008, will tackle high school success and college/career readiness for students at-risk of dropping out of high school through a much larger, “socially innovative” approach. Social innovation goes beyond traditional philanthropy – which typically involves only charitable giving – to also engage people and technology to bring different approaches, new solutions and added resources to challenging social problems. The Aspire effort already has impacted more than one million U.S. high school students, helping them prepare for success in the workplace and college.

The greatly expanded effort centers on a new, $250 million financial commitment planned over 5 years. AT&T Aspire will build on that commitment by using technology to connect with students in new and more effective ways, such as with interactive gamification, Web-based content and social media. The company will also tap the innovation engine of the AT&T Foundry to look for fresh or atypical approaches to educational obstacles. Finally, AT&T Aspire will capitalize on the power of personal connections in the form of mentoring, internships and other voluntary efforts that involve many of AT&T’s approximately 260,000 employees.

Between now and April 18, 2012, AT&T is also encouraging South Carolina organizations to submit applications to pre-qualify for funding through the Local High School Impact Initiative Requests for Proposals (RFPs).

There it is; the trap is baited and set.

Now, who will take the offer?

The new and expanded AT&T commitment builds on the work AT&T Aspire has completed in the last four years. AT&T and the AT&T Foundation have invested more than $100 million in Aspire since 2008 – and more than $923 million since 1984 in education. The South Carolina Aspire investment has amounted to $1.6 million since 2008. Organizations that have benefited include Junior Achievement Job Shadow, the United Way Family Engagement Program, and the ‘My Idea’ program with America’s Promise Alliance.