Greenville News supports public school choice

The headline tells the tale: "Open enrollment is a good idea."

That's the verdict of the editors of the Greenville News, and it accompanies an editorial that lays out in flat facts the case for supporting public school choice, the substance of a bill sponsored by Senator Wes Hayes and now before the Senate for consideration.

This is not the private school voucher bill adopted by the House in March; that one drains tax revenues from the General Fund, in turn draining available resources from public schools. The Hayes bills addresses choice among public schools, earning the praise of Greenville's editors.

A bill that would provide for open public school enrollment across district lines and ensure students have other choices such as single-gender schools, Montessori schools and language-immersion programs seems to be a reasonable way to provide students in South Carolina greater access to high-quality public schools.

The bill has been passed by a Senate Education subcommittee, but has a long way to go before it becomes law. A similar bill was passed by the Legislature in 2007 but vetoed by Gov. Mark Sanford because it didn't include a private school choice option.

Public school choice, or open enrollment, is an obvious place to begin creating competition for public schools. Public education is a constitutionally mandated function of the state government and it makes perfect sense for lawmakers seeking to increase competition to do it in a way that clearly is within their constitutional authority. A proposal such as this avoids any of the potential gray areas that surround the idea of using state funds to pay for or subsidize private education.

A bill that would provide a tax deduction for parents who send their children to private schools is being considered in the Legislature, but it does not offer the incentives that would truly increase competition for public schools.

Open enrollment for public schools would let parents opt to have their children attend better performing schools that are outside of their attendance zone as long as there is room in that school.

School districts would be able to turn down students seeking a transfer if a school is at capacity, and the bill would cap the number of students crossing attendance boundaries at 3 percent of total enrollment. These are sensible limits.

The bill also would require that students at all grade levels be offered one additional choice beyond the school they are assigned, according to a report by The Associated Press. Those choices could include single-gender, Montessori, language immersion, magnet, charter, arts-intensive, extended-day and year-round programs, according to AP. That sounds like a good idea, but lawmakers should carefully study the financial impacts of such a requirement.

This law would need to be a zero-sum proposal -- districts should not lose funding by accepting students from outside the district or meeting other requirements in the bill. Decisions on which students are accepted also would need to be made in a completely objective manner. For instance, this is not intended to open the door for schools to recruit talented athletes to bolster an athletic program.

Those cautions aside, this bill could increase competition among public schools. Under-performing schools could see their enrollment decline unless they take steps to improve, and that should be an incentive for schools to constantly assess their own performance.

In addition to giving students a choice to attend a better school, this bill could offer parents a more convenient option. Some parents, for instance, might seek a school that's closer to work than their child's assigned school.

It would be unfortunate to see this bill falter again because it's not linked to a private-school choice option. It makes perfect sense to separate this type of school choice from other bills that would open the doors to using tax money to fund or subsidize private school attendance.

With public school choice there are no questions of equity involving lower-income students who want to transfer, there's no question about appropriate levels of accountability to the state, and there's less concern about financial impact on local public schools. All of those are serious questions that need to be asked and carefully answered before South Carolina adopts any sort of private school choice. (That said, there is room in this state for limited private school choice that is carefully crafted and is aimed at increasing the options for children trapped in low-performing schools.)

Lawmakers would do well to give this bill a serious look and give state students the option to attend schools across attendance and district boundaries. The limitations in this bill appear to be reasonable enough to ensure that open enrollment in South Carolina would be both manageable and beneficial to students and our public schools.

South Carolina needs to take steps to continue improving the quality of education in this state. This would appear to be one such step that could be taken with little controversy and no negative financial impact on the public schools that are so vitally important to the success of everyone in our state.

Courson predicts clock will block voucher bill

Reporter Sarita Chourey of the Morris News Service posted this afternoon a news item that quotes Senate President Pro Tem John Courson predicting a stall in the progress of this year's House voucher bill.

South Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore John Courson predicts the school-choice bill passed by the House in March will run out of time this year.

At the end of March, the S.C. House approved H. 4894, which would give income tax deductions to parents of children who are home schooled or attend private school, as well as make low-income and disabled students eligible for partial scholarships to attend other schools.

"The problem with any legislation that comes over from the House at this late date (is) we've got the appropriations bill," said Courson, a Columbia Republican, who grew up in Augusta.

"By the time we complete that, we'll be basically almost 90 percent through the legislative session. So any bill that has a lot of controversy attached to it, I think will be very difficult to get out of the Senate this year."

I'm not familiar with the Morris News Service, and its article strangely attempts to place Courson among the Aiken County legislative delegation, but the content representing Courson's observations seems sound.

The regular legislative session is scheduled to end June 7. Senate rules allow a single senator to stall a bill, which could further hinder the school-choice bill's passage.

"I think it needs to be thoroughly vetted, and I would intend to do that," said Courson.

Most of the votes against the bill came from House Democrats, including Rep. Bill Clyburn of Aiken.

Clyburn said his chief objection to the bill, which the House passed 65-49, was that it would siphon away $37 million from the state.

"Our constitution guarantees an education for our boys and girls," he said. "And there are so many complaints coming from the public school system ... about the (funding) shortage for basic student costs, and we're still not where we ought to be. And yet we'd take away $37 million."

But his delegation colleague, Rep. Bill Taylor, R-Aiken, celebrated the bill's passage in an email newsletter. "Education is not a one-size-fits-all proposition; each child is educationally unique in how they learn," wrote Taylor. "In my view, this is not a battle between 'Choice' versus public education as opponents try to frame the argument; both have their place and both need support."

Well, lucky for everyone, there appears to be a real school choice bill making its way through the Senate today, so those in favor of school choice needn't lose heart.

Senate advances choice within public schools

Now this is a horse of a different color: A Senate subcommittee this morning approved a measure that "expands students' educational options within public schools," according to reporter Seanna Adcox.

Notice: This is not the House voucher bill that offers tax incentives to parents who withdraw their children from public schools, or whose children already attend private and parochial schools, or home schools. Rather, this sounds like a true public school choice proposal.

Under the bill, which was approved on a voice vote Wednesday by a Senate Education subcommittee, school districts by 2014-15 would have to offer students at all grade levels at least one additional choice beyond the school they are zoned to attend. Options could include single-gender, Montessori and language-immersion programs, as well as magnet, charter, arts-intensive, extended-day and year-round schools.

It also allows students to attend any school regardless of attendance lines, even outside of their district, at no cost - a concept known as open enrollment. However, the bill allows officials to turn down a transfer application if a school is at capacity, and to limit the number of yearly transfers from another attendance zone to 3 percent of a school's population.

Supporters include associations of teachers, school boards and administrators - groups that oppose private school choice.

Republican state Superintendent Mick Zais supports the bill but would prefer that legislators lift the cap to allow for full open enrollment, said his spokesman Jay Ragley. The agency estimates that 20,000 students could transfer under the cap.

But senators said the allowed cap provides some local control, because no one's certain how many students would elect to transfer. Democratic Sen. John Matthews, a retired principal, called it a good starting point, noting that space could be an issue. He said the cap could be revised later.

Former Democratic Superintendent Jim Rex pushed for the bill in 2007, as he sought to expand choices within the public system while opposing efforts to use taxes to help parents send their children to private school.

But former Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican, vetoed the measure because it didn't include the private school piece, and the House upheld the veto by 14 votes.

Isn't that interesting. It's the same measure that already passed the legislature once -- in 2007 -- but Mr. School Choice himself vetoed it because it didn't dismantle public education.

What we may take from this point is that the true motive of so-called "school choice" advocates is, in fact, the destruction of public schools if, after all, they cannot support a school choice bill that throws open the opportunity for parents to move their children wherever they like, at no expense, within the myriad public school options.

This is truly an important development, because it helps to focus our attention on doing what's best for all of South Carolina's 700,000 public schoolchildren, rather than diverting public school funding to suit the private-school preferences of our very own one-percent.

Sen. Wes Hayes, the main sponsor of the re-introduced measure, said advocates of private school choice should support his bill as a complement to their efforts.

"There's not necessarily one type of choice. This adds to the options of parents. Having open enrollment across school district lines is new," said Hayes, R-Rock Hill. "I think they all go hand-in-hand."

Hurray for Senator Hayes, for thinking outside the school choice box as constructed by public-school dismantlers.

Senators removed from the bill the requirement that the education agency create an Office of School Choice.

Rex created the office without the law and spent much of his tenure advocating the expansion of various public school choices statewide, making South Carolina a national leader in public single-gender and Montessori programs. But, as Rex noted years ago, many districts need the legal push.

When Zais took office, he merged five divisions into three, and folded the school choice division into the Office of School Transformation.

That sounds like Zais -- consolidating power, purging public servants and chilling dissent, all under an Orwellian banner of doublespeak. I heartily doubt that Zais's definition of "transformation" coincides with mine.

Officials did not know how many of South Carolina's 85 school districts already offer inter-district choices.

High-choice districts include Richland 2 in suburban Columbia.

Board chairman Chip Jackson said more students apply for his district's popular choice programs than schools will hold. Depending on the school, lotteries or an interview process determines who gets to attend. He noted the district's magnet selection process just ended, and parents are flooding offices with calls.

"It's a good problem to have, but it is a problem," he said.

He said he is concerned that students in adjoining districts wanting to transfer in could worsen the problem, prompting senators to let local school officials, rather than the state board, to determine when a school is at capacity.

The lone senator voting against the bill was Sen. Phil Leventis, D-Sumter. He said he didn't like the idea of lotteries determining who gets into a program, and said the state needs to give districts money to help pay for the additional programs.

"We're not going to be able to talk ourselves to good schools. Unless we're willing to invest, we'll end up with lotteries," he said. "Should our children's futures be determined by whether or not they win a lottery? I say the answer is no."

Even better! Why not amend this bill to include necessary funding to ensure that choice within public schools is a reality for every student in every school district?

And let a thousand flowers bloom!