Finn: Romney will push vouchers, despite flaws

Former deputy Secretary of Education Chester Finn predicts that we'll soon see an education plan from presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who heretofore hasn't bothered to let Americans know what he might do regarding public education if he were to assume the presidency.

Further, Finn predicts that a Romney plan will lean heavily on vouchers, mainly because every other conservative strategy has been co-opted by the Obama administration.

But the issue of vouchers ought not be taken as a silver bullet for conservatives, Finn cautions.

He writes,

As vouchers have become real, however, the political picture has grown more complex. Eight newish factors are worth noting:

First, while the U.S. constitution is no longer a deal-breaker, some thirty-eight states have sundry provisions in their own constitutions that make it difficult or impossible to aid private schools and/or religious institutions and/or any sort of education program that isn’t “free and uniform.” (This is what killed the Florida “opportunity scholarship program” in that state's Supreme Court in 2006.) Hence there’s a practical limit to how far vouchers can really spread.

That was precisely the problem for former Governor Mark Sanford and his successor, Nikki Haley, and their pro-voucher acolytes. Since our state Constitution actively bars the use of state funds for private or parochial education, voucher proponents have had to find cute ways around the prohibition, like giving tax credits and tax deductions for tuition to private and parochial schools.

But, as they say, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's a voucher.

Second, as religion has loomed larger as a political issue, evangelicals (most often Republicans) are keener and keener for it to play a role in public policy, including religious education and church-affiliated schools, while secularists (more apt to be Democrats) are even more resistant to public support for such schools.

As a colony, South Carolina characterized itself as a haven for all religions, a Mecca of religious tolerance. But the Age of Enlightenment was followed by the Great Revival of the early nineteenth century, and we live under its influence yet. There are reasons why the Quakers largely abandoned South Carolina in the mid-1800s, and why Nikki Haley had to assure primary voters of her commitment to Methodist Christianity.

Third, other features of private schools -— that have nothing to do with unions -— also cause palpitations among liberals (most often Democrats), such as selectivity in the admissions office (and the risk of “exclusion” of poor or disabled or minority or other “diverse” kids). Such anxieties may not cause them to keep their own daughters and sons out of such schools but a double standard often comes into play where “public policy” is concerned.

Ah, exclusivity raises its head again. Country clubs, golf clubs, hunting clubs and private schools remain the last bastions of exclusivity in America, and we mustn't use public policy to alter such things.

Fourth, even as the pro-voucher team has picked up a handful (but only that) of influential Democrats, a lot of state and local Republicans have grown somewhat equivocal about school choice—charters, vouchers, inter-district transfers, and more. Their own suburban constituents, whether enrolled in public or private schools, are averse to welcoming many of those kids into their classrooms, and their proud suburban school systems don’t much want to lose their own pupils, either.

Those kids. Did you catch that? Those kids.

What sort of kids is Finn talking about, that comfortable suburban parents wouldn't want many of in their classrooms? Hmm?

Fifth, what was for decades the strongest lobby in favor of vouchers (and tuition tax credits and more), namely the Roman Catholic Church, is today neither nearly as strong as it once was nor nearly as committed to revitalizing its own schools. It seems to have lost most of the wind from its sails.

Sixth, private schools in general are queasy about government entanglements and rules, worried about “accountability” requirements, alarmed at the prospect of forfeiting their distinctiveness, fretful about losing control of their standards and admission processes, leery of disclosing comparable data on their own educational effectiveness, and, sometimes, legitimately unsure that they really can do a good job with those kids. Nor has American private education shown much entrepreneurial inclination to grow to accommodate greater demand.

News flash: Traditional public schools aren't in love with what Finn calls "government entanglements and rules" either, but it's part of the social contract that public schools accept and serve every child that enrolls, that standards apply and must be maintained, and that accountability -- apples to apples comparison and contrast -- is part of the agreement. It's a pity that parochial schools value the lack of standards more than children's education.

Seventh, with state and local budgets tight, the claim that vouchers save taxpayer money over the long run is met with incredulity by school systems that can only see revenue disappearing along with headcount. And the argument that vouchers will be a needless and, for the taxpayer, costly windfall for middle-class families whose children already attend private schools is not easy to refute. (Of course, a carefully designed program may aid only “new” students.)

Truth is truth, isn't it?

And how helpful is Finn, suggesting a way around the ugliness of unfortunate voucher financing.

Eighth, and finally, the word “private” has grown even more suspect in American education circles today than it was yesterday. “Privatization” has sometimes gone badly.

Do tell.

Some private operators of charter schools are greedy, self-absorbed, and uninterested in educational quality. (Likewise for private SES providers and such.) Early evaluations have yielded mixed results for privately operated “cyber schools." Private school (and college) tuitions keep rising without evidence of improved results. And in era of transparency and accountability, the reluctance of private educational institutions to disclose key information about themselves, their students, their academic gains, and their finances—even to private organizations such as GreatSchools.net—has made them at least slightly suspect. (Why are they so secretive?)

What's shocking about Finn's litany is not its substance; we read the papers, we think and use deductive reasoning, we come our own conclusions about the motives of public school antagonists. What's shocking is hearing the opponents of public education admit the fatal flaws in their alternatives.

Still, fatally flawed as the alternatives are, public school opponents cling to their ideologies.

I’m still heartily in favor of more vouchers, provided that the program is structured with an eye toward serving the neediest kids first and making participating schools reasonably accountable for their results. I do expect the momentum in this direction to continue. But I don’t expect it to accelerate. And that’s not just because of hostility from Messrs. Obama and Duncan.

Judge rules vouchers unconstitutional in Oklahoma

Last week, a judge in Tulsa ruled that Oklahoma's private-school voucher program for special education students violate that state's Constitution.

This is interesting because of the judge's rationale, explained by reporter Nirvi Shah of Education Week magazine:

Reports by the Associated Press and Tulsa World say that Judge Rebecca Nightingale agreed with the school districts that the law violates an Oklahoma constitutional prohibition of public money being used directly or indirectly for any sectarian institution.

South Carolina's Constitution contains the same prohibition.

Two school districts sued parents of six children with disabilities last fall over the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships program. The scholarship program, created in 2010, initially required districts to administer the vouchers. Several districts refused to do so, and they were sued by parents. The districts eventually countersued.

While several states have voucher programs just for students with disabilities—a strategy some school choice advocates push for as a gateway to other voucher programs—Oklahoma's is one of just two that has faced legal challenges. Arizona's is the other.

Tuesday's ruling opens the door to an appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The parents' attorney, Eric Baxter of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Washington, said he will file an appeal. He told the Tulsa World he will also file a motion for a stay to keep the law intact until the appeals process is completed—149 students use the vouchers now—and a final ruling is rendered.

So, could the U.S. Supreme Court be called upon to rule on this matter in the next few years?

And if so, what are the odds that the Court will rule that public dollars proscribed for public uses in state constitutions must be used for public purposes only?

Voucherites complain House didn't go far enough

Here's the complaint, just as I found it. Read it and weep.

There are essentially two strategies in diplomatic negotiations. One is to ask for more than you know you’re likely to get, then to demand a portion of it and claim you’ve “compromised” on your original demand. The other is to make very modest demands and hope they’re met in full. Neither strategy has worked for school choice advocates in South Carolina. They began around ten years ago by asking for a voucher program – that is, a program in which the state would offer scholarships to low-income students to attend the private school of their parents’ choice.

Voucher legislation never got anywhere near passing. Four years later, in 2007, they threw their weight behind a significant but much less ambitious plan dubbed “open-enrollment.” The idea behind H.3124 was to liberalize the state’s zoning restrictions and thereby encourage some level of competition among schools and districts. Parents whose children were “zoned” for failing schools (the thinking went) would be able to take action short of removing their kids from the public system altogether. That bill passed the House and Senate, but only after its opponents had neutered it. Indeed, Governor Sanford – a strong supporter of school choice – vetoed it on the grounds that the bill’s “open enrollment” policy had become so restricted as to be closed for most South Carolinians. As he pointed out in his veto letter, the bill would only have granted enrollment moves to about 3 percent of the state’s 86,900 students in failing schools. An amendment was offered to give private school scholarships to students who had been denied transfer privileges, but that amendment was easily shot down.

By 2011, school choice advocates were lowering their sights yet further. H.3407 received the most attention. That bill would have provided a tax credit to parents sending a child to private school worth half the base student cost provided to the relevant public school, or around $2,400, and a credit of up to $1,000 per student to parents who home school.

The bill would also have created a credit for taxpayers who contribute to a scholarship organization for students from low-income families. All things considered, the bill didn’t offer the full-fledged reform that school choice advocates wanted, but it wasn’t insignificant and might have helped some families zoned for failing schools to achieve something better for their children. Predictably, it was pilloried by the public education establishment for “using public money for private schools.” Of course, the money wasn’t for “the schools” but for the students – students who, in many or most cases, have no opportunity to attend a satisfactory school because the public school system had failed them.

Left out of the debate was the glaring inconsistency in the argument that public money shouldn’t go to private schools. Those who blast school choice legislation like H.3407 had rarely if ever expressed any apprehension about tax favors going to private companies like Boeing, Amazon, and countless other multimillion-dollar corporations – even though, unlike students trapped in failing schools, the state owes these major corporations no favors whatsoever.

That bill failed in the House by a vote of 60 to 59.

This year, school choice advocates have been reduced to asking for what amounts to crumbs from the master’s table. H.4894 doesn’t offer tax credits to individuals at all; it offers tax deductions. Under this bill – which passed the House on second reading by a vote of 65 to 49 and is now in the Senate Finance Committee – parents who move a child from one public school to another would be eligible to receive a $1,000 deduction; parents who home school their children would be eligible to receive a $2,000 deduction; and parents who send their children to private schools would be eligible to receive a $4,000 deduction.

It’s necessary to say “would be eligible to receive” rather than “would receive” because, of course, vast numbers of those affected would not be eligible to receive the deductions. Why? Because they don’t earn enough taxable income to claim them. So those who really need financial help in finding a better educational option for their children won’t qualify for the deductions, and those who do qualify for the deductions aren’t the ones who need financial help. As one opponent of school choice aptly put it, these tax deductions are “just gravy for families who really don’t need it.”

Other measures in the legislation would encourage school choice, at least in theory. In particular, contributions to organizations that support scholarships to low-income and special-needs children could claim a 60 percent tax credit. State economists estimate the bill would “cost” $37 million in revenue – giving some lawmakers the excuse they need to reject the plan. But bear in mind: that analysis doesn’t account for the fact that the public school system’s financial burden would diminish to the extent that parents take advantage of it, and there is no conceivable way to know how many individuals and corporations would take advantage of the scholarship deductions.

But although H.4894 passed the House by a significant (though not quite comfortable) margin, the bill’s chances in the Senate look much bleaker. Absent some miracle in the upper chamber, school choice advocates will find themselves in the familiar position of having lowered their demands and come up with nothing.

For a decade, then, opponents of school choice have blocked even modest attempts to introduce parental choice into the public school system. Meanwhile, the state’s SAT scores consistently rank at or near the worst in the nation; South Carolina has 11 of the nation’s 25 worst public schools, as well as the 3rd worst high school completion rate (66 percent) in the nation; only 42 percent of graduating students are ready for college reading, and only 35 percent are ready for college math.

At some point, if school choice advocates lower their aims enough to satisfy their opponents, they may actually pass a “school choice bill,” however negligible it might be. But an insignificant bill will by definition have insignificant results, and when a new “school choice” law produces no results, school choice will get all of the blame and none of the credit. Would that be worth it?

This year's voucher bill was no compromise

Call this an oversight: The State newspaper published its annual editorial opposing a voucher bill, but I didn't cross-post it here at the time. So, to keep the record current, here's the text, delivered by editors well before the House committed itself to a costly and foolish endeavor to dismantle public schools.

ADVOCATES call their trimmed-down plan to pay parents to send their kids to private schools a compromise. It’s not.

Oh, it costs less than last year’s plan to throw hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money at private schools that follow their own rules. But the big-money out-of-state special interests pushing this year’s legislation make no bones about considering this an “incremental” first step, a base from which to increase funding in years to come. More importantly, it retains all the other problems that plagued the plans that our lawmakers have wisely rejected in the past — and ought to reject again this year.

Unlike previous proposals, the bill awaiting House debate gives tax deductions rather than tax credits to middle- and upper-income families who abandon the public schools. That keeps the price down, because a $4,000 deduction reduces income taxes by, at most, $280, whereas a $4,000 credit reduces taxes by $4,000. Those small numbers — most parents would save significantly less than $280 — underscore the idea that supporters consider this bill a foot in the door; why else go through such a divisive political fight, and use up $12 million of the $37 million the legislation would cost in the first year, in order to give such piddling little incentives?

Like previous proposals, the legislation promises to help poor kids attend private schools by way of a convoluted tax scheme that lets people divert up to $15,000 of their income taxes each year to private “scholarship-granting organizations” that would dole out the money to needy children. That’s a problem in itself if you believe that we all ought to pay our fair share toward the public services that benefit us all, rather than picking and choosing which programs to pay for.

Beyond that, this faux free-market plan would help only those particular poor children whom private schools choose to admit and whom private scholarship-granting organizations choose to help and whose parents have a way to get them to and from the private schools and pay at least a quarter of the tuition themselves.

And as with the previous proposals, the worst part about the so-called compromise is the effect it would have on our collective psyche.

We provide tax incentives in order to encourage people to do things we want them to do but which the government is not doing. That is, incentives are an alternative to government doing something itself. The logical next step after giving incentives to parents to leave the public schools is to stop providing public schools. Of course, we can’t do that, but the more people believe that incentives make private schools a real option for any parents who care about their children, the less they will support doing the hard and politically difficult work of improving our public schools — which is so clearly the goal of those who are bankrolling this plan.

We understand that a lot of legislators are terrified that the out-of-state special interests will field and bankroll challengers in this year’s elections if they don’t support this bill. We sympathize, but we also expect them to support the best interests of our state, even if that carries political risks. Lawmakers need to reject this bill, and make it clear that they won’t be intimidated into supporting bad legislation that will harm our state.

The State tracks the money trail to House voucher vote

Following the money led Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to the Nixon Watergate scandal, and the Washington Post to a Pulitzer Prize.

This Easter weekend, The State newspaper hopped down the money trail to last month's vote on the House voucher bill and found dozens of voucher bunnies collecting their own Cadbury eggs from donor Howard Rich of New York.

More than half of the S.C. state representatives who voted in favor of a school choice bill that passed the House have received campaign donations from New York businessman and school-choice advocate Howard Rich and his affiliated companies.

Rich has made campaign contributions to 38 of the 65 House members – 58 percent – who voted for the bill, which passed 65-49.

Collectively, those representatives, all Republicans, received $188,000 in campaign cash from Rich and his limited liability corporations, or LLCs, from 2008 to 2011. That dollar figure does not include dozens of contributions totaling thousands of additional dollars made by Howard Rich associates who also favor school choice.

And more donations from Rich could be on the way.

All House members and state senators are up for re-election this year and are raising campaign cash now. Lawmakers must report new donations next week to the State Ethics Commission.

The House-passed proposal now heads to the state Senate, where it faces an uphill battle. Any one senator effectively can block consideration of a proposal, but school-choice opponents likely will not have to resort to filibustering to kill the idea. While the Senate is controlled by Republicans, the body’s ruling majority actually is a loose confederation of Democrats, most of whom who oppose the House-passed school choice bill, and moderate Republicans, many representing areas with good public school districts that they are determined to protect.

Also, Rich has directed little of his financial clout toward the Senate thus far.

Rich has given to only 11 of the Senate’s 46 members, and one of those recipients said late last week that he will oppose the House proposal.

In the House, two members, state Reps. Wendell Gilliard, D-Charleston, and Curtis Brantley, D-Jasper, accepted donations from Rich but voted against the school choice bill, which aims to give tax deductions to parents who send their students to private schools or who home-school their students.

Which reminds me of Arthur Ravenel's old dictum: If you can't take their money and vote against their interests, you have no business in politics. Cracks me up every time, imagining how Ravenel delivered the line.

The remaining 47 House members who opposed the bill – all but five of them Democrats – did not receive donations from Rich.

Critics of the school-choice legislation point to Rich’s donations and the late March House vote as proof that outside influence continues to shape education policy in the Palmetto State.

“It’s very sad that a large amount of money has come in from out of state to pressure legislators into doing something that most South Carolinians are against,” said Molly Spearman, director of the S.C. Association of School Administrators, which opposes the bill. “(This bill) erodes the support for public education in South Carolina.”

But lawmakers who voted for the legislation say it only makes sense that they would get donations from contributors, including Rich, who agree with their school-choice stance.

“What can he possibly gain from this? Other than he understands that education is important and requires out-of-the-box thinking? He gets no financial benefit from this,” said state Rep. Bill Herbkersman, R-Beaufort, who received $6,000 in Rich donations in 2010 and 2011.

Herbkersman, who says he has talked to Rich on the phone a few times but never met the New Yorker, added: “You can send as much (state) money as you want to any school. But if you don’t have a full parking lot on parent-teacher night, it’s going to be a failing school.”

He added, “This bill gives parents and students, who are really interested in an education ... a choice. The status quo is not working. It’s time to try something else.”

I'm in full agreement on this point: The status quo is not working.

What is the status quo?

Simply put, the status quo has been that South Carolina consistently under-funds public education and consistently diverts support and resources from public schools to any number of alternatives, effectively offering incentives to parents who will leave public schools and propping up private education, where profits can be made by corporate interests and campaign donors. Results of this status quo have been damaging to the state's public education system, and to the state's standing in the nation.

Obviously, the status quo isn't working.

And just as obviously, the solution is to foreclose the diversion of public funds to private alternatives, fully fund the base student cost for at least the length of one student-cohort's term in public school -- 13 years -- and then weigh the outcomes.

But that's not the solution that privatizers and voucherites prefer.

Libertarian-leaning and low-profile, Rich has been hesitant to speak with the S.C. media about his school-choice advocacy.

His multiyear S.C. effort for school choice has sparked controversy, inspiring a now-defunct blog that tracked his S.C. campaign donations and a 2008 statewide tour by one prominent Democrat, Phil Noble, who called on candidates to return his donations.

Accused of taking tainted money, some candidates returned Rich-affiliated money, including state Rep. Deborah Long, R-Lancaster, who sent back $12,000 received from Rich’s associates.

Bill opponents also charge Rich and other school-choice proponents with nasty campaign attacks on GOP lawmakers who did not support past school-choice bills. During last month’s House debate, state Rep. Boyd Brown, D-Fairfield, said voting in favor of the bill was approving of those tactics.

“What you’re saying with this bill is that this is the way to get things done,” Brown said on the House floor. “When it comes to school choice, that’s what it took to get this passed. All it took was legally being on the take from Howard Rich. Instead of voting on the interests of Howard Rich, you need to vote in the interests of your constituents.”

In his email to The State newspaper, Rich defended his right to fund candidates and said he does not “own any property in South Carolina or have anything to gain personally from passage of school choice legislation.”

He said he supports “efforts like this because I believe in freedom of choice and a parent’s right to have a say in the education of their children. Nothing more.”

Rich also has backed other conservative causes in other states, including term limits and limited-government initiatives. “I make donations to candidates in many states,” Rich wrote. “Given the continuing low performance of S.C. public schools, I would think the benefits to more parental involvement would be self-evident.”

In a 2008 video interview by then-state GOP chairman Katon Dawson, Rich said, “If I want to do something that I strongly believe in, like empowering parents – whether it’s in South Carolina or Georgia or California or any place – I should be allowed to do that.”

I wanted to watch this video again, and would have linked it here for everyone's benefit, but the video has been deleted from YouTube and all links to it across the internet are dead.

The fight over whether to offer tax breaks to parents who home-school their children or send them to a private school has been a fiery debate in the S.C. Legislature since 2004, featuring regular bouts between the two entrenched sides.

On one side are public school groups and organizations that have argued the state’s public schools are not adequately funded. They say it is unfair to give tax breaks to private school and home-school parents that reduce the state’s income, which could go to finance better public schools. They also say private schools and home-schooling families are unaccountable, not as subject to state scrutiny as public schools are, and possibly offering subpar educations.

Well, truth is truth.

On the other side, school-choice advocates say a one-size-fits-all approach to educating students is a misguided idea ensuring that some students will fail. They say tax deductions would make it possible for more parents to consider education alternatives that work better for some students.

Ah, we must provide all options at all costs for the one percent, even at the expense of the ninety-nine percent.

Isn't it always the case?

Nationally, more than 20 states have enacted some form of school-choice legislation, ranging from vouchers to tax deductions. Last week, for example, Louisiana’s General Assembly expanded its voucher program.

I heard about this. Rumor has it that Governor Bobby Jindal promised to use his line-item veto to strike out road projects for any legislators who voted against his education package. And since Louisiana's legislators all have four-year terms, in both houses, alongside the governor, a lot of lawmakers foresaw dire times ahead for their constituents who couldn't get road repairs. Shades of ol' Huey Long.

Despite the many school-choice proposals presented over the years, all ultimately failed to pass either the state House or Senate – until last month.

The House’s 65-49 vote on March 28 marked a major triumph for the school-choice movement and could be a sign of changing legislative sentiments.

This year’s proposal is different from previous ones. It grants tax deductions rather than the previously proposed tax credits.

The proposal would:

• Give up to a $4,000-a-year tax deduction for each child enrolled in private schools.

• Give up to a $2,000-a-year deduction for expenses for families who home-school their children.

• Make poor and disabled students eligible for private-school scholarships; those who donate to nonprofits that would provide those scholarships could claim tax credits.

“Is this the legislation I would have written? No,” Rich wrote The State newspaper. “Is this an acceptable framework that has been developed to meet South Carolina conditions, created by South Carolinians with the support of a wide array of groups and individuals? Yes, I think it is.”

Should the bill become law, it would cost the state about $37 million in lost revenue in its first year, 2012-13. That cost would continue – and could increase if more families opt for private or home schools – in future years.

Indeed, a number of lawmakers who spoke against the voucher bill last month said it represented only the beginning. As soon as the barnyard gate is thrown open, watch for the wolves to be back at the henhouse door next year, asking for more meat.

School-choice advocates say there has been inappropriate influence in the school-choice debate, but not by Rich and his allies. Instead, they point to emails, acquired through the state’s open records law, that show principals and other school officials have encouraged public school teachers to phone lawmakers to express their opposition to school-choice legislation.

“No matter one’s stance on school choice, this practice is fundamentally threatening to democratic institutions,” said Neil Mellen, spokesman for South Carolinians for Responsible Government, a school-choice advocacy group. “It replaces rule of law with political patronage. It makes voters and taxpayers subservient to the government.”

Spearman, of the Association of School Administrators, and other public school advocates say the law is followed in those communications and educators have the right to be informed.

“School personnel are extremely careful in following the letter of the law on that,” Spearman said. “SCRG has harassed school districts on this topic, hoping to keep them from staying informed. We won’t let that happen.”

Firing back, school-choice opponents long have called on the Responsible Government group to reveal who pays for its operations.

Mellen said his group has a range of individual and institutional donors but provided no specifics. He added his group does not receive any money from public sources, as opposed to some of the education groups fighting school-choice legislation whose members are dues-paying school districts.

This is comical: The gang who demands transparency and accountability offers no transparency and accountability, all the while impeding professionals from knowing what's happening to their professions.

In family counseling, the person demonstrating this behavior is called an "undisciplined disciplinarian." On the playground, he's called a "bully." In either case, his credo is simple: Do as I say do, not as I do.

The bill next heads to the Senate, where it faces a more difficult path as Democrats and moderate Republicans easily could join forces to block the bill.

Asked if he thought the choice bill could pass the Senate, Rich wrote: “I don’t know. Of course, I hope the bill passes out of the Senate, but I am not a lobbyist and certainly don’t have a crystal ball. If it does, it will be a huge opportunity for a lot of middle and low-income families. That would be great.”

Based on his contributions, Rich’s Senate influence is not strong.

Of 46 state senators, only 11 have received money from Rich, including two Democrats, Sens. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, and Darrell Jackson, D-Richland. Collectively, those 11 senators have received $102,000.

Jackson, a former Richland 1 school board member, said he does not support the legislation that passed the House and doubts it can pass the Senate.

“It’s late in the session. You would need nearly a consensus to get it passed before time runs out,” Jackson said of the legislative session that ends in June. “And this will likely be controversial.”

Jackson said he only has met Rich briefly once, a couple of years ago when the New York millionaire made a rare stop by the State House to meet lawmakers. Jackson added he is not sure why Rich donated $9,000 to his campaign in 2010, but suspects it is because of his advocacy for charter schools, consolidating school districts and other non-traditional approaches to help failing schools.

But, Jackson added, “I’m a longtime supporter of public education. This bill won’t help our kids.”

Recipients of Rich voucher funds identified

The State newspaper performed a public service this weekend by publishing a list of legislators who received funding from Howard Rich, the New Yorker voucher ideologue who has invested millions in buying pro-voucher public policy across the nation.

The list includes members of both parties and in both houses, although a voucher bill has never gotten to the Senate for consideration before this year.

But the list is incomplete, The State notes, because it doesn't include the funding received from Rich's "associates".

Lawmakers who received campaign cash from New York school-choice advocate Howard Rich from 2008 to 2011:

In the House

Bruce Bannister, R-Greenville: $1,000

Liston Barfield, R-Horry: $3,000

House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham, R-Lexington: $5,000

Don Bowen, R-Anderson: $14,000

Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg: $1,000

Tom Corbin, R-Greenville: $9,000

Kris Crawford, R-Florence: $10,500

Bill Crosby, R-Charleston: $5,000

Greg Delleney, R-Chester: $5,000

Tracy Edge, R-Horry: $9,000

Shannon Erickson, R-Beaufort: $2,500

Dan Hamilton, R-Greenville: $2,000

Nelson Hardwick, R-Horry: $5,000

Jim Harrison, R-Richland: $4,000

Phyllis Henderson, R-Greenville: $10,000

Bill Herbkersman, R-Beaufort: $6,000

Bill Hixon, R-Aiken: $2,000

Chip Huggins, R-Lexington: $2,000

Phillip Lowe, R-Florence: $7,000

Peter McCoy, R-Charleston: $7,000

Jim Merrill, R-Berkeley: $5,000

Dennis Moss, R-Cherokee: $5,000

Chris Murphy, R-Dorchester: $1,000

Wendy Nanney, R-Greenville: $14,000

Andy Patrick, R-Beaufort: $1,000

Mike Pitts, R-Laurens: $5,000

Tommy Pope, R-York: $7,000

Josh Putnam, R-Anderson: $1,000

Rick Quinn, R-Lexington: $9,000

Gary Simrill, R-York: $5,000

Roland Smith, R-Aiken: $5,000

Mike Sottile, R-Charleston: $9,000

Kit Spires, R-Lexington: $2,000

Tommy Stringer, R-Greenville: $5,000

Bill Taylor, R-Aiken: $5,000

Anne Thayer, R-Anderson: $3,000

David Tribble, R-Laurens: $1,000

Brian White, R-Anderson: $500

In the Senate

Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson: $5,000

William O’Dell, R-Abbeville: $5,000

Mike Fair, R-Greenville: $3,000

Lee Bright, R-Spartanburg: $41,000

Greg Ryberg, R-Aiken: $2,000

Mike Rose, R-Dorchester: $7,000

Robert Ford, D-Charleston: $18,000, including $14,000 for Ford’s 2010 gubernatorial bid

Tom Davis, R-Beaufort: $11,000

Darrell Jackson, D-Richland: $9,000

Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, R-Cherokee: $3,000

Chip Campsen, R-Charleston: $1,000

NOTE: Listed donations do not include thousands of additional dollars donated by Rich’s associates.

The State's coverage also included a rare question-and-answer with Rich himself, in which he noted that because he doesn't own property or have any other financial stake in the state, his intervention is entirely ideological in nature:

Howard Rich, a millionaire New York real estate investor, has been funding school-choice efforts in South Carolina for years. Libertarian-leaning and low-profile, Rich has been hesitant to speak with the S.C. media. But he did answer some questions last week from The State newspaper about his involvement in the school-choice debate.

Q. How will this legislation benefit S.C. families?

The legislation passed by the S.C. House of Representatives is a framework for giving parents more control over the education of their children. Given the continuing low performance of S.C. public schools, I would think the benefits to more parental involvement would be self-evident. What strikes me as most important about the House legislation is the consensus that Ways and Means Chairman Brian White was able to forge. Is this the legislation I would have written? No. Is this an acceptable framework that has been developed to meet South Carolina conditions, created by South Carolinians with the support of a wide array of groups and individuals? Yes, I think it is. That in itself is a benefit. It is a coming together of all interested parties to begin to address a serious and ongoing problem.

Q. Much has been made about donations from your LLCs and associates to S.C. lawmakers who favor school-choice legislation. Can you talk about why you chose South Carolina as a place to support such candidates?

I make donations to candidates in many states. As in my response to your first question, South Carolina trails almost all states in a bunch of categories so there’s a great need for choice and significant potential upside.

Q. I take it you still own no property here in South Carolina and, thus, do not directly benefit from the passage of any school-choice legislation. Is that still accurate?

It is still the case that I do not own any property in South Carolina or have anything to gain personally from passage of school choice legislation. I support efforts like this because I believe in freedom of choice and a parent’s right to have a say in the education of their children. Nothing more.

Q. Do you think the bill can pass the S.C. Senate?

You ask if the school choice bill passed by the House of Representatives can pass the S.C. Senate — I don’t know. Of course, I hope the bill passes out of the Senate, but I am not a lobbyist and certainly don’t have a crystal ball. If it does it will be a huge opportunity for a lot of middle and low-income families. That would be great.

'Ed deform' and 'choice' agenda reveal Bizarro Robin Hood

Educator PLThomasEdD, who posts frequently at DailyKos, last week authored a column at SchoolsMatter.info, in which he described corporate education reform as a "Bizarro Robin Hood" universe.

Once I learned more about the "Bizarro" concept, I concluded that Thomas has devised an ingenious way of looking at not only corporate education deform but all the rest of the astroturf foolishness masquerading as grassroots activism.

"Bizarro," it turns out, was a character created to be a negative opposite of Superman, by the creators of Superman. In some ways, he's the mirror-opposite of Superman -- as evidenced by the backward-facing "S" on his strange pale-blue and toxic red costume -- but he's also somewhat larger, less human and definitely malignant. Picture Superman as an evil, steroidal, anti-human zombie, and you're in the right ballpark.

Thomas suggests we apply the same twist to Robin Hood for his thesis. Easy enough: Robin Hood is altruistic humanist, more concerned for the needs of the poor than the wealthy, an inspirational leader of courageous men, willing to defy tyrants and break unjust laws to ensure that the powerless are protected.

Bizarro Robin Hood, then, is a greedy corporatist, more concerned about profit than people, who pays a mercenary band of thugs to carry out his agenda, ignoring Constitutional protections of civil liberty, and buying the loyalty of lawmakers who will change and pervert statutes for his benefit.

With that image in mind, here is Thomas's text:

In the DC Universe exists an opposite (of sorts) to Superman -- Bizarro Superman.

In the corporate education reform universe exists an opposite to Robin Hood -- Bizarro Robin Hood.

This opposite, the school choice advocate, lacks the irony and dark (and sometimes slapstick) humor of the comic book alternate universe because school choice Bizarro Robin Hoods steal from the poor to give to the rich -- while claiming they are serving the poor. Yes, these Bizarro Robin Hoods are real-world personifications of George Orwell's doublespeak and doublethink.

South Carolina appears closer than ever to falling for the school choice propaganda. School choice advocacy, funded by Howard Rich and Koch money across the U.S., has become a moving target, but the newest bizarre ploy has been to claim that choice is primarily for the impoverished children and their families -- a beacon of hope to lure the public into believing in both the power of the free market and (ironically?) the power of the government to afford people in poverty the same choices as the affluent.

A typical argument comes recently from Randy Page, president of the Orwellian-named South Carolinians for Responsible Government: Private choice helps students, schools.

This, however, is Bizarro Robin Hood propaganda. Here is what the school choice advocates always fail to share:

• Private schools (of the free market) do not outperform public schools when student characteristics are considered.

• School type (public, private, or charter) is not the determining factor in educational outcomes, but the most powerful influence on student achievement remains the home and community of the child.

• Throughout the history of choice models, the outcomes have never lived up to the choice advocates' claims; see Minnesota, Milwaukee, and Florida (despite the claims otherwise). Choice has, however, produced some corrosive outcomes, including re-segregating schools.

• School choice involves much more than tuition or per-pupil expenditures. To have choice, families must have access to transportation and often have to incur costs related to supplies. No current choice package provides families in poverty the enormous funding needed to produce genuine leveling of the playing field.

• Tuition tax deductions are available ONLY to those families paying taxes, result in only a small percentage of the deduction amount, and are therefore in practice lining only the pockets of the affluent.

• Choice plans always create transient student populations. Few parents ever take the choices offered, and then those few who do, tend to return to their home schools in just a few years. This shifting of populations isn't healthy for students and distorts the data needed to determine if educational quality is being addressed.

• Parents often (if not primarily) choose schools based on factors other than educational quality—factors including religion and socio-economic stratification.

Beware Bizarro Robin Hood claiming that school choice is for poor families...

What a great way to look at these folks.

I've seen Randy Page's name crop up somewhere else recently, but I'll save that for a bit.

Governor vetoes voucher expansion bill -- in Arizona

Sometimes, the day's news leaves the rational reader feeling light-headed, dizzy.

Among red states, Arizona takes a back seat to no one.

In fact, the historian and social scientist in me points out that the population of the Southwest reflects the western-most migration of eighteenth-century South Carolinians. Travel through Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Arizona, and you'll see many of South Carolina's place names and family names.

As evidence, Mississippi's Trent Lott's first name -- Chester -- reflects his grandparents' origins in Chester County, South Carolina. Arizona's John McCain is descended from Mississippi planters. Seeds of ideologies sown in South Carolina nearly 300 years ago have blown due west, which explains many invisible kinships across the southern belt of the nation.

Which makes today's news from Phoenix so disorienting: "Arizona's Gov. Brewer Vetoes Voucher Expansion," reads the headline at Education Week's blog this morning.

Arizona's governor? Jan Brewer? The same governor who pushed for radical immigration reform, and who upbraided President Barack Obama on the tarmac when he last visited her state?

She has vetoed a voucher bill?

That's the news, which I happily, but confusedly, offer you here:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has vetoed legislation that would have allowed a major expansion of school vouchers in her state, citing concerns about its costs and "artificially manipulating" the market of public and private schools.

Unbelieveable -- a principled free-market ideologue!

The Republican governor's decision is certain to flummox and disappoint backers of private school vouchers, who had hailed the legislature's recent passage of the measure as an important step for school choice.

Yet Brewer said she objected to increasing costs for taxpayers before a state budget is approved, according to a letter explaining her veto. And she also cited broader, philosophical concerns about skewing the balance between public and private schools, in an effort to promote school choice.

"The state of Arizona needs to work towards a system of different educational settings to cater to the different ways in which our students learn," Brewer wrote. "A well-equipped system with choice competition and innovation—these are the keys to our educational system. Local school districts, charter schools, home school, private and parochial schools all have an important role to play."

But Brewer, while describing herself as a long-time advocate of school choice—citing other legislation she has signed promoting educational competition—also said "there is a careful balance we have to maintain."

"We must enhance educational options wherever we can, but we must also ensure that government is not artificially manipulating the market through state budget or tax policy that would make an otherwise viable option so unattractive that it undermines rational choice in a competitive market," the governor explained.

Arizona currently allows families of children with disabilities to use accounts of public money to cover private school tuition and other costs. The legislation would have expanded the program to a broader student population, by making students in struggling schools—specifically rated "D" or "F" schools—eligible for taxpayer funds.

This is not the first time Brewer has nixed a voucher proposal that emerged from the GOP-dominated legislature.

Last year, she vetoed a measure that would have awarded tax credits to entities that supported private school scholarships—also because she had concerns over the program's costs.

Sometimes, it's better to accept good news without studying too closely the reasons for it.

Strange as it sounds to say, Brewer made a great decision for her public schoolchildren today, and she deserves the thanks of them, their parents and their educators.

Here's hoping Governor Nikki Haley will take note.

Brack, Free Times react to House voucher bill

Two sources I consult regular for clear-eyed reporting and commentary on the goings-on in Columbia are Statehouse Report, published by Andy Brack of Charleston, and the Free Times of Columbia.

Neither has disappointed in covering last week's passage of a voucher bill by the House.

From Statehouse Report comes this headline: "Back-door voucher bill defies logic."

If you ever thought the folks at the Statehouse take voters as “April fools,” just delve into a newly-passed House bill that seeks tax credits for parents who have kids in private school.

The House of Representatives has passed a so-called “school choice” bill that supporters claim gives parents more choice in education. Over the last few years, proponents have received more than $2 million to push the legislation from New York millionaire Howard Rich.

Meanwhile, opponents say the measure is a voucher in disguise -- a harmful way to siphon public money from public schools to weaken them more than they already are.

When proponents talk about “school choice,” they ignore the fact that public schools today offer more choices than ever before. Not only are there a plethora of charter schools all over the state, but there are magnet schools and programs, vocational tracks, Montessori-style instruction, online schools, arts-based schools and more.

Take note of that last fact, readers; you'll see it here again.

To suggest that public schools don’t offer choices to parents is outright wrong. But more importantly, the logic behind this move for more “school choice,” is fundamentally flawed.

Consider how the newly-passed House bill would allow tax deductions for parents’ income in three categories:
Up to $4,000 for parents who send their child to private school;
Up to $2,000 for parents who home-school their child; and
Up to $1,000 for parents who send their kids to a school in a district which is not their own school district of residence.

Now think about that. The measure is elitist on its face. Why? Because you need at least $4,000 in taxable income to take advantage of the tax deduction. But guess what? About half of South Carolinians make so little income -- or have enough tax breaks already -- that they pay absolutely no South Carolina income tax.

I think Rep. James Smith made the same point during the House debate, and he added that because of this fact, the bill under discussion amounted to no more than "gravy" for those wealthy enough to take advantage of it.

Let me run that by you again. Of the 2 million income tax returns filed in 2009, some 889,889 returns (43.7 percent) had absolutely zero tax liability. If you add another 131,592 returns where filers’ tax liabilities were $100 or less, then just over half -- 50.15 percent -- of filers paid $100 or less in S.C. income tax, according to the most recent numbers from the state Department of Revenue.

So do you really think people who don’t earn enough money to pay income taxes in South Carolina are going to benefit from a $4,000 tax deduction or have enough money to send their kids to private school? Heck no. But the legislature wants you to believe it is “looking out” for low-income people and trying to give them real choices.

Hogwash. This Republican-backed measure isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. It’s nothing more than a way to help rich backers who want public money to help pay for private schools.

Various estimates suggest that between $7 million and $15 million has been donated to legislators and candidates, or used to mount propaganda campaigns, in support of the scheme.

The fiscal impact statement of the bill is estimated to cost the state $37 million in the first year, and more in subsequent years. I'd say that a lot of payback.

Jon Butzon of the Charleston Education Network said the House bill will harm public education.

“It’s only going to benefit a few and anybody who gets anything can already attend a private school,” he said. “The bigger issue is the General Assembly has a constitutional responsibility to every child of the state of South Carolina and it’s not meeting its responsibility.”

That responsibility, he said, is to fully-fund public education, as required by the state Education Finance Act. For the coming year, the House passed a $6.5 billion budget that underfunded public education by $700 million, or $1,002 per student.

So our lawmakers under-fund the base student cost by $1,002 per student, then moan and groan about the poor results coming out of public schools, and use them as justification for a voucher scheme that isn't paid for in our budget. This isn't public policy; it's a bad Three Stooges reel.

So while legislators plan to abrogate their responsibility to pay for public education as required by the law -- particularly laughable in a year when the state has a $900 million surplus -- they are also trying to sell the education moonshine of the need for tax deductions for people with kids in private school.

“They’ll sit up there and point the finger, but the Constitution says they’re responsible for every child,” Butzon noted. “This bill lets them off the hook to sell the smoke and mirrors that voters deserve a choice. Where is THAT in the Constitution?”

This House bill is a fraud that takes us all as April fools. Let’s hope the state Senate doesn’t fall for this illogical, vituperative political malarkey.

Amen. The State's "Buzz" author seems to think the Senate will bury it quickly, but I'll get to that in a minute.

Award-winning writer Corey Hutchens of the Free Times offered his own circumspection of the matter in this week's edition:

The Palmetto State has been a national flashpoint in the school choice movement since former Gov. Mark Sanford introduced the issue in 2004. In doing so, he attracted out-of-state pro-voucher forces whose outside money and hardball political tactics have become legend.

In 2009, Sanford’s lieutenants circulated a “hit list” of GOP incumbents who opposed school choice. Groups aligned with the issue recruited and funded primary challengers.

Gov. Nikki Haley, long a darling of the private school choice movement, said early in her administration that she won’t make the divisive issue a priority — but will sign a school choice bill if it makes its way to her desk.

In 2010, a Winthrop University poll showed likely voters in the state were evenly split on education tax credit proposals, which was a significant change from previously reported negative public perception.

Funny thing about polls is how the language of the questions often leads to pre-determined answers. Ask someone, "Would you support taking public dollars away from public schools?" and, if they support their local public schools, they may answer "No."

Now ask the same person, "Given that we spent roughly the gross national product of a Latin American nation on public education but haven't yet seen a graduate win a Nobel Prize, would you support giving state money to private schools where class sizes are small, school lunches are nutritious and children seem happy?" You might get a teary "Yes."

So I'm not that excited about polls unless I can read the questions and compare apples to apples.

Debbie Elmore, spokeswoman for the South Carolina School Board Administrators Association, who has fought such legislation for years, agrees that more lawmakers might have voted for it because it’s a “tamer” bill, but cites other reasons, too.

She blames outside school choice groups using what she calls bullying and harassment tactics to antagonize Republican lawmakers who oppose school choice, particularly in the Upstate.

During Sanford’s administration, the school choice debate made Howard Rich a household name. The wealthy New York City-based antigovernment activist dumped millions into South Carolina in support of school choice by funding SCRG and pro-voucher candidates.

One of former Democratic S.C. Superintendent of Education Jim Rex’s legacies was making the word “voucher” toxic when it came to school choice legislation. The language has since changed to “tax credits.”

This year, the national tea party-aligned FreedomWorks has zeroed in on certain lawmakers with phone calls and direct mail in their districts.

The efforts aren’t new, but are they finally paying off?

While Elmore won’t go that far, she says they’ve certainly taken their toll.

“I think that they’ve worn down the weary,” she says.

Wearing down the weary: Another tactic that doesn't lead to great public policy.

As I noted, The State seems to believe that the Senate will kill the voucher bill quick. True, the filing deadline for Senate races passed on March 30, so the voucherites don't have that to hold over Senators' heads. But a lot of Senators already have opposition, so we'll see.

Writes The State:

As any civics teacher can tell you, the role of a lower house – in South Carolina’s case, the state House – is to hotly reflect the desire of the public.

Now.

Elected every two years, House members cannot afford to be philosophical.

Even so last week’s S.C. House vote to start (it will never end) diverting state tax revenues – via tax deductions and credits – to parents who home school or send their children to private school was surprising.

No. 1: The voucher movement has been noisily renouncing any communal societal obligations – humbug!!! it’s failed!!! – for a decade.

No. 2: New York real estate millionaire Howard Rich and his friends have put nearly $2 million into S.C. political races over that decade to elect enough legislators – overwhelmingly Republicans – to turn the state into a K-12 lab experiment.

What’s surprising?

What took so long?

Lower houses, like the S.C. House, are the legislative equivalent of the grand jury that would indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor said he – or she – wanted it. You, Joe or Mary Donor, or Bill or Sarah Voter want it? It’s part of the GOP agenda! You get it!

Of course, your civics teacher also would remind you that that is the proper role of a lower house, and the role of an upper house – in this case the famously deliberative S.C. Senate – is to sort the good ideas that the hotheads in the lower house have from the bad ones.

And it will.

(Heck, the S.C. Senate even kills good ideas that come from the House.)

Bottom line? The latest school choice bill will go nowhere this year. It felt good (in the House). But the Senate will kill this puppy so smoothly it won’t even yelp.

And, this being the end of a two-year session, after the bill dies in the Senate, it can all start again next year.

The Buzz sure hopes so.

South Carolina could use the added economic impact of Mr. Rich financing another 10 years of Palmetto State political races and blogs.

Must we suffer that injustice to reap economic growth?

I appreciate that The State added the vote breakdown, so we can see who did what on the fateful day.

For those of you keeping score, here’s how the House vote broke down:

For – 65 members, all Republicans – Rita Allison, R-Spartanburg; Todd Atwater, R-Lexington; Nathan Ballentine, R-Richland; Bruce Bannister, R-Greenville; Liston Barfield, R-Horry; Eric Bedingfield, R-Greenville; Kenny Bingham, R-Lexington; Don Bowen, R-Anderson; Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg; Alan Clemmons, R-Horry; J. Berham Cole, R-Spartanburg; Tom Corbin, R-Greenville; Kris Crawford, R-Florence; Bill Crosby, R-Charleston; Joseph Daning, R-Berkeley; Greg Delleney, R-Chester; Tracy Edge, R-Horry; Shannon Erickson, R-Beaufort; Mike Forrester, R-Spartanburg; Mike Gambrell, R-Anderson; Dan Hamilton, R-Greenville; Nelson Hardwick, R-Horry; Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston; Jim Harrison, R-Richland; George Hearn, R-Horry; Phyllis Henderson, R-Greenville; William Herbkersman, R-Beaufort; Bill Hixon, R-Aiken; Chip Huggins, R-Lexington; Chip Limehouse, R-Charleston; Deborah Long, R-Lancaster; Phillip Lowe, R-Florence; Jay Lucas, R-Darlington; Peter McCoy, R-Charleston; Jim Merrill, R-Berkeley; D.C. Moss, R-Cherokee; Steve Moss, R-Cherokee; Chris Murphy, R-Dorchester; Wendy Nanney, R-Greenville; Ralph Norman, R-York; Phillip Owens, R-Pickens; Steve Parker, R-Spartanburg; Andy Patrick, R-Beaufort; Michael Pitts, R-Laurens; Tommy Pope, R-York; Joshua Putnam, R-Anderson; Rick Quinn, R-Lexington; Kevin Ryan, R-Georgetown; Gary Simrill, R-York; B.R. Skelton, R-Pickens; G. Murrell Smith, R-Sumter; G.R. Smith, R-Greenville; J. Roland Smith, R-Aiken; Mike Sottile, R-Charleston; Edward Southard, R-Berkeley; Kit Spires, R-Lexington; Tommy Stringer, R-Greenville; Eddie Tallon, R-Spartanburg; Bill Taylor, R-Aiken; Anne Thayer, R-Anderson; David Tribble, R-Laurens; Brian White, R-Anderson; William Whitmire, R-Oconee; Mark Willis, R-Greenville; Tom Young, R-Aiken

Against – 49 members, including five Republicans – Paul Agnew, D-Abbeville; Terry Alexander, D-Florence; Karl Allen, D-Greenville; Carl Anderson, D-Georgetown; Michael Anthony, D-Union; Jimmy Bales, D-Richland; James Battle, D-Marion; William Bowers, D-Hampton; Joan Brady, R-Richland; Lester Branham, D-Florence; Doug Brannon, R-Spartanburg; Curtis Brantley, D-Jasper; G.A. Brown, D-Lee; H. Boyd Brown, D-Fairfield; R.L. Brown, D-Charleston; Mia Butler Garrick, D-Richland; Bill Clyburn, D-Aiken; Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg; Laura Funderburk, D-Kershaw; Wendell Gilliard, D-Charleston; Jerry Govan, D-Orangeburg; Chris Hart, D-Richland; Jackie Hayes, D-Dillon; David Hiott, R-Pickens; Kenneth Hodges, D-Colleton; Jenny Horne, R-Dorchester; Lonnie Hosey, D-Barnwell; Leon Howard, D-Richland; Joseph Jefferson, D-Berkeley; Kevin Johnson, D-Clarendon; Patsy Knight, D-Dorchester; David Mack, D-Charleston; Joe McEachern, D-Richland; Walt McLeod, D-Newberry; Elizabeth Munnerlyn, D-Marlboro; Jimmy Neal, D-Lancaster; Joe Neal, D-Richland; Denny Neilson, D-Darlington; Harry Ott, D-Calhoun; Julia Parks, D-Greenwood; Lewis Pinson, R-Greenwood; Todd Rutherford, D-Richland; Ronnie Sabb, D-Williamsburg; Bakari Sellers, D-Bamberg; James E. Smith, D-Richland; Leon Stavrinakis, D-Charleston; David Weeks, D-Sumter; Seth Whipper, D-Charleston; Robert Williams, D-Darlington

Pro-voucher columns sound strikingly similar

As I read this column by Rep. Christopher Murphy in the Summerville Journal Scene, I thought it sounded an awful lot like the one that Karen Floyd published in the Mount Pleasant Patch a few days ago. Both praise the House for passing its voucher bill last week.

O, I know there's no voucher-on-paper in the bill adopted by the House last week; it's just a shell game that uses public dollars to give tax breaks to people who send their children to private schools. But as former Rep. Lewis Vaughn hinted back in 2004, it's still just a voucher scheme that uses tax breaks to accomplish the goal.

The similarities between Murphy's and Floyd's columns are spooky, as if they are revising a common document to add their own local place names and flavor.

For example, both declare they are products of public schools.

Floyd: "I am the product of public education: from Irmo Elementary School to a Juris Doctorate from the University of South Carolina School of Law."

Murphy: "As a product of Dorchester District 2 (Summerville High School ’86), I share in that pride."

Both praise their own local public schools.

Floyd: "Likewise our identical twin sons have received excellent educations in public schools from Pine Street Elementary School to the Freshman Academy at Spartanburg High School. I can point to seminal teachers and coaches that have impacted their lives in positive ways, and we are forever grateful to each one."

Murphy: "The district - among state’s highest achieving - is one of the reasons our county continues to attract new residents.
...
In other words, parents in Dorchester 2 already have some of the widest “school choices” in the state. And that’s a big part of why the public schools here are exceptional."

Both, however, pivot from praising the public schools in their own communities to citing the example of tax breaks for private school tuition in Florida.

Floyd: "Over 35,000 low-income students in Florida are now enrolled in the school of their parents’ choice through such a program this school year. State budget officials there calculate the tax credits save $1.49 for each dollar in revenues 'lost' through credits."

Murphy: "These state income tax credits pose no threat to state funding for public schools. That’s because public schools are funded with sales tax revenues, not income tax collections. More to the point these programs, which already support tens of thousands of low-income students in other states, keep money flowing to the public schools even if children transfer out, since most of state spending on K-12 education is not 'tied' to the child. Recent studies have determined that each dollar in school choice tax credits claimed saves taxpayers $1.49 in spending."

Is it coincidental that both Floyd and Murphy are intimately familiar with the fiscal impact statements of Florida's private-school tax break program, and that they cite precisely the same data in their opinion-editorials?

Strikingly, both took precisely the same notes of Rep. Rita Allison's remarks during last week's House debate on vouchers.

Floyd: "Representative Rita Allison’s passionate defense of the bill on Wednesday was particularly insightful. She explained how the school choice debate is not a zero-sum argument about choosing public 'or' private schools; it’s really about 'and.' To reduce inequality, to increase parental engagement and to raise student achievement, Allison insists every parent in the state deserves to have real choices for their own child’s education. That means public and charter and private and magnet and virtual and home school; whatever works for the specifics of that pupil’s learning needs."

Murphy: "The school choice debate is not a zero-sum argument about choosing public 'or' private schools; it’s really about 'and.' To reduce inequality, to increase parental engagement and to raise student achievement, every parent in the state deserves to have real choices for their child’s education. That means public and charter and private and magnet and virtual and homeschool and frankly, whatever works for the specifics of that pupil’s learning needs."

Wow -- even the sentence fragments are noted and punctuated identically, word-for-word.

That's some amazing note-taking. Either Floyd and Murphy shared their notes of Allison's remarks with one another, or Allison was speaking from the same document that Floyd and Murphy later revised to draft their columns.

I wonder if there are -- or will be -- other column clones floating around our state on this topic?

Floyd praises wealthfare, criticizes citizens' ignorance

In 2006, Karen Floyd of Spartanburg ran for state Superintendent of Education and tried diligently to avoid acknowledging her support for publicly-funded private school vouchers.

Now that the State House has approved such a measure for the first time, Floyd has published an opinion-editorial -- in Mount Pleasant, of all places -- praising that news and celebrating her long-time support for vouchers or, as she calls it, "school choice."

Of course, different people use different terms to describe the bill approved last week. One that has a particularly resonant ring is "wealthfare," defined as (1) the redistribution of wealth from the poor and working-class to the already-wealthy, by government policy, and (2) government subsidy of private preferences for purposes of social engineering, which may include re-segregation.

Where welfare is filthy, "wealthfare" is pretty. As welfare is ugly and dull, "wealthfare" glistens in iridescence.

In her opinion-editorial, Floyd never mentions the word "wealthfare," but she describes it as vividly as if she's always lived in its neighborhood.

I am the product of public education: from Irmo Elementary School to a Juris Doctorate from the University of South Carolina School of Law. Likewise our identical twin sons have received excellent educations in public schools from Pine Street Elementary School to the Freshman Academy at Spartanburg High School. I can point to seminal teachers and coaches that have impacted their lives in positive ways, and we are forever grateful to each one. In the ninth grade, however, we made a change – a choice. While one son was flourishing, the other son was not reaching his potential. No fault lies with any person, process or institution. Though it has always been apparent that our twin sons, despite being identical, learned differently, responded differently and were challenged differently, it was not until mid-way through the ninth grade that our family chose an educational option other than public education, for one son.

A good editor might have cut this paragraph down to size thusly: "A lawyer sent one of her sons to a private school."

Fine and dandy.

Today, one son continues to thrive in the diverse and rich tapestry at Spartanburg High School while the other son has found his place at the Christian Academy of Oakbrook Preparatory School. As I write today, both sons are turkey hunting on Youth Day with my husband, their proud father. Despite tremendous similarities, a snapshot of this past Friday demonstrates the environmental distinctions from which our boys thrive. One son left our home early Friday with the face paint remnants from the previous night’s Lacrosse game still on his face, the other son left with “work clothes” complete with heavy duty yard gloves and sun screen (knowing full well the probability of sun screen actually being used was limited, at best). Though Spartanburg High School varsity lacrosse lost to Dorman the night before, our son was excited for practice later that day to hear what the Coaches “take” on the game might be, and what lessons were learned from the defeat. Our other son headed off to a service day at Hatcher Gardens where he and other students from Oakbrook Academy fulfilled their community service by working in the garden for the entire school day. Both children’s needs were met and they were growing in distinctively different ways despite genetic and environmental links.

Again: Why this was published in Mount Pleasant, where life is "pleasanter," escapes me, as it's all about life in Spartanburg.

Again, using the editor's knife: "Her sons find that opportunities available in public schools and private schools are designed to be different."

Here, Floyd turns philosophical-ideological.

“School Choice” has been a buzzword, and a political litmus test for almost a decade in South Carolina. State Representatives first voted on the issue in 2004, but individual lawmakers, such as State Senator Lewis Vaughn, began sowing the seeds years before.

Odd that she chose to highlight former Rep. Vaughn, who told a press conference on February 26, 2004 that he has supported alternatives to public schools since 1957 because "I went to a school that didn't do very well by us kids."

Almost three months later on May 12, during House debate, Vaughn announced, "If you take enough of 'em (students) out (of public schools), you can close one."

And a year later, on April 18, 2005, Vaughn moved to table a voucher-bill amendment by Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter with these words: "I can't let you win this one. If you want to kill any change to school choice, you bring all these schools under regulation, and then you don't have a bill any more. Private schools aren't going to submit to regulation under state government."

But those were the days of accountability and transparency, so long ago. How things change.

Floyd continues, "During that decade of deliberation other states passed and aggressively expanded school choice plans." She notes a few examples of novelties adopted when radical majorities took control of government in some states, but she neglects to mention the instances of such novelties being declared unconstitutional, and others leading to criminal and civil litigation from fraud.

Then she explains that the primary reason for South Carolinians' refusal to spend public dollars on private schools is, literally, our ignorance. She puts lipstick on the word and rephrases it "lack of understanding," but lack of understanding is ignorance. Therefore, we've been ignorant all these years, and our ignorance has kept us from accepting the concept of wealthfare through private school subsidies.

The biggest obstacle to the parental choice movement in South Carolina has been the lack of understanding of what School Choice is and the rhetorical terms of the debate.

We're so unsophisticated, we working-class folk here in South Carolina. We lay in need of education -- what irony!

School Choice should be for every family. Independent education choices should also be available for every child, not the privilege of the economic elite.

On topics of independent education, I enjoy hearing the reminiscences of South Carolina's Tom Turnipseed, who helped to organize segregation academies into an association of independent schools back in the 1960s and 1970s before having a change of heart and exposing the motives behind the growth of those schools in the first place. As I understand it, those schools sprung up overnight as a reaction to Brown v Board of Education, and our aristocracy's insistence upon keeping everyone in their assigned place through continued segregation under other names.

So when I hear "independent education" praised, I think of the desire to keep the little children of the wealthy over here, and everyone else's children, black and white, over there. That seems to be the difference between public education and "independent education."

Floyd mentions the commentary of Rep. Rita Allison in last week's floor debate, as well as the thoughts of Rep. Eric Bedingfield. As I read her quote by Bedingfield, I am struck at the similarities between it and the comments made in the 1950s and 1960s in favor of keeping schools segregated:

He stressed that school choice was an issue of how lawmakers set the field for parents to make choices, rather than a micromanagement of specific school policies and programs. “Parents have the most information and best motivation to make decisions for their own children,” he insisted, noting that even the best classroom in an absolute sense might not be the most appropriate for each specific student seated in it.

Yes, the old arguments have so many applications, as Floyd herself comes close to acknowledging:

Just as the terms of debate evolved over time, so too have the specifics of the choice legislation considered.

Indeed. Private school wealthfare began as a classic voucher, but South Carolinians saw it for what it was and disapproved. So wealthfare was adapted -- former Governor Mark Sanford tried unsuccessfully to brand it "education passports," and "opportunity scholarships." But we unsophisticated South Carolinians caught onto those subterfuges, too, and disapproved.

The proponents of wealthfare turned the subsidies into tax credits. Sure enough, it was former Rep. Lewis Vaughn who declared in 2004, "It's a tax credit plan without the entanglement of the voucher system." But that smelled enough like trickery that we disapproved of that, too.

In fact, we unsophisticated South Carolinians, suffering in our "lack of understanding" of the "rhetorical terms of the debate," disapproved of every private-school wealthfare subsidy that has been offered, as public polling has consistently shown. It wasn't until several millions of dollars in out-of-state money rained down upon our legislative majority that wealthfare gained support -- and then, the support came from within the legislature, not from across the broad land.

But Floyd tries so hard to get the rest of us to swallow it, as if wealthfare helps us, too.

School Choice is NOT a dichotomy of public “or” private education. It should be an option for all families in South Carolina who have decided –for one reason or another– that their local traditional public school is not the best fit for their child.

My family had a choice, and so too should every family in South Carolina.

One nice thing about the internet age is that interested citizens can respond online to what they read in opinion-editorials. It's true at the Mount Pleasant Patch, too, where Floyd's column is published and where readers could offer their responses, like this one from Jonathan Edwards:

State budget officials there calculate the tax credits save $1.49 for each dollar in revenues “lost” through credits." Is Florida providing a tax credit (refund) to any low-income student who enrolls in a private school? If so, that is not what we're doing here. A poor person will not get a refund for sending their child to private school. They could get a deduction from their taxable income. But if you're already in the lowest income bracket that doesn't really mean anything. It does mean something for people in the higher income brackets who are looking for as many itemized deductions as possible, to minimize what they owe in income taxes every year.

I am happy that your family has a choice about your sons' schooling. However, your family probably has a lot of options that others don't have. Sentiments of personal gratitude and reflection do nothing to fund public education, or give poor people the "option" to longer be poor.

Excellent points, and good demonstration of knowledge of the rhetorical terms of the debate, too. Clearly, Edwards is not one of South Carolina's unwashed ignorant, who suffer with a "lack of understanding."

And reader John H offered this insight:

Did I miss something in H. 4894? http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess119_2011-2012/bills/4894.htm I read it only as an amendment to the 1976 tax code to give tax credits to families who send their children to private school, home school, or a school in a different district. It also grants tax credits to those “taxpayers” who contribute to qualified scholarship funding organizations.

I could not find where the bill sets up an SFO or vouchers to help underprivileged or special needs children. Not unless the ambiguous language in Section 2 (A), 2 is the hitch, suggesting that the State will fund the SFO.

I may have overlooked something, but H. 4894 does little to improve education in SC. Show me the section I missed.

I'm beginning to understand now why Floyd published her column in Mount Pleasant, as far away as possible from home in Spartanburg...

Voucher bill passes, 65-49

By a vote of 65-49, the South Carolina House has just approved a statewide voucher bill on second reading.

Johnson, Smith, Brown speak on the bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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