Some GOP lawmakers are moving forward with an agenda that should make voters wonder whether “conservative” will remain as an accurate description for the state. That agenda is taxpayer funding to implement Obama’s universal early-childhood education plan, a version of which is moving forward in the state budget process.

You should be concerned. Very concerned. Under the guise of “making high quality pre-school available to every child,” left-wing social engineers and pandering politicians are partnering to foist another controlling, costly and failed policy on taxpayers in South Carolina.

We feel confident backing up the description of “controlling, costly and failed.” After all, we are talking about a program championed by the good folks at theNEA to enforce government education of all children as quickly as they can get their hands on them. Specifically, the National Education Association stated in their 2013 Resolutions, that “the Association supports early childhood education programs in the public schools for children from birth through age eight,” and “mandatory kindergarten with compulsory attendance.”

Is this really about education, or control? The data doesn’t seem to indicate the latter, considering that the $7 Billion a year federal Head Start program displayed less-than-notable results. At least, that’s what the Department of Health and Human Services reported. According to DHHS, “there were initial positive impacts from having access to Head Start, but by the end of 3rd grade there were very few impacts found for either cohort in any of the four domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health and parenting practices. The few impacts that were found did not show a clear pattern of favorable or unfavorable impacts for children.”

So, an expensive, big government failure can get the attention of South Carolina lawmakers, but not an actual reform like school choice? Other states have rushed to implement school choice programs. That’s because – unlike mandatory compulsory early-childhood education – school choice actually works.

When State Senators vote on whether or not to fund the Obama education mandate, they aren’t making a casual statement about wanting young children to get the education they need. They are publicly proclaiming whether they think parents should bow out of the way for aggressive labor unions and leftist speculators. More than that, they are putting their own names down on paper to say whether or not they want South Carolina to remain a “conservative” state.

This is a favorite talking point for many school choice opponents, and one that is too infrequently challenged with obvious facts . The easiest way to answer the question of so-called “private school discrimination in admissions” is to simply look at other states with existing school choice programs.

The recipients of scholarships via tax credits in states like Florida are low-income students from underperforming public schools. 37,578 low income students to be exact. Certainly detractors can’t think that low-income scholarship recipients who found access to private school classrooms are all “cherry picked” for their good behavior and academic achievement?

Consider the 1,600+ children zoned for violent, underperforming schools in the District of Columbia who are currently benefitting from private school education because of school choice. They weren’t turned away, or selected because of a privileged educational background.

Instead of speculating about how private schools could possibly marginalize students who participate in school choice programs, doesn’t it make more sense to look at all the concrete instances of where that isn’t happening?

Additionally, private schools are forbidden by law from discriminating on the grounds of race, color or national origin. House Bill 4894 – which passed the House in 2012  - specifically detailed discrimination under these terms as unacceptable. If someone were completely frank, they would have to acknowledge that state school districts are often segmented along economic/wealth lines, as well as simple geography.

At this point, someone might retort with the statement that schools can still base admissions on academic background or achievement, while public schools don’t. This is patently false, as magnet schools, charter schools, and Governor’s schools ( all public schools) can currently refuse admission to a student who doesn’t make the cut. Consider the widely-respected Academic Magnet High School in Charleston, whose admission requirements state, ” Students must have a minimum national percentile rank of 85 on norm referenced achievement tests.”

Private schools across this state serve a wide-variety of students and learning needs, the same as private schools who are enrolling school choice scholarship recipients in other states. To decry school choice on the speculative grounds that private schools will “inevitably discriminate” is condescending at best, and intentionally misleading at worst.

For some, maybe it’s difficult to acknowledge that there are independent school educators who have just as much of a desire to help any student who comes their way as their counterparts in public education who “have to.” We would encourage skeptics to visit schools like Capers Christian Academy (Johns Island) and Hidden Treasure School (Greenville) who are completely focused on providing quality education to underprivileged and special needs students.

Alberto Carvalho, Superintendent of Miami-Dade School District, wasn’t talking about the “Gangnam Style” sensation when he told the education establishment to “Ride the wave, or succumb to it.” He was talking about school choice options for families.

Here is the full quote - “Change is going to accelerate. And you need to learn about what the change is, impose your own change just to survive. We are now working in an educational environment that is driven by choice. I believe that is a good thing. We need to actually be engaged in that choice movement. So if you do not ride that wave, you will succumb to it. I choose not to.”

Superintendent Carvalho’s statement is a telling statement on the national shift in dialogue about whether parents should have the final say in where their child attends school. For some it may come as a huge suprise to hear the top official of a metropolitan district openly contradict the rhetoric of influential unions and  education “advocate” groups. Maybe it shouldn’t anymore.

After all, Mr. Carvalho is working every day in a district that has improved as a direct result of school choice. Miami-Dade District has one of the state’s highest concentrations of students participating in Florida’s many magnet school, charter school, and private school choice options. Not only are there more parents in Miami-Dade seeking out school choice options, but they’ve seen actuable, measurable progress accompany those opportunities. No school district in the state – which The Voice has already noted has seen dramatic improvement – has made bigger gains with students.

The old stand-by oppositions to school choice ( “It is unproven, won’t help the poor, and will hurt public schools”) simply don’t stand up to the reality of what has happened in Superintendent Carvalho’s district. He has the liberty of acknowledging the benefits, because denying them would pretty openly undermine his own credibility.

As more parents get better access to data about how school choice really works, and mesh that with the already-desirable notion that they should be able to have a choice in something as vital as education, the entrenched establishment that refuses to budge will appear less and less relevant. How do you present yourself as having the best interest of children at heart while opposing a proven means of helping them? Even Fiscal Frank Morgan ( where you been, Dr. M?) doesn’t want to show up as the bad guy in “Won’t Back Down II: The Kershaw Story.”

School choice is gaining momentum. More and more states are enacting school choice legislation, and more and more parents are willing to hold lawmakers accountable for not prioritizing choice as a necessary reform.

South Carolina legislators and educators would be wise to read the writing on the wall.

Bureaucrats are pushing a plan to raise taxes and increase spending on public schools.

The districts spent $9.4 billion last year. Apparently $13,600 per student isn’t enough. The plan will raise taxes across the state.

Families and small business owners will be hardest hit. First, local taxes for public school operations would be eliminated and replaced with a new statewide property tax. Then the districts would get the chance to go back and (re)introduce “new” local taxes to supplement the state money. The tax hike is brainchild of school bureaucrats, working through taxpayer-subsidized associations.

The authors call themselves “educators” since they aren’t actually “teachers,” and they’ve been working on the tax scheme for two years.

On one hand, they insist the new state property is necessary to “equalize” funding across all parts of the state. On the other hand, allowing districts to reintroduce local taxes will increase the gaps. Their estimates predict a net tax increase of $947 million the first year. Public schools already collect money from local, state and federal taxpayers. State money is mostly based on how many students are enrolled in each district, with a few major caveats. Districts in low-income areas (whose own tax bases are small) get more. Schools who enroll many low-income students get more. Schools whose students have higher instructional needs get more. Those schools with the lowest test scores and graduation rates also get more.

In other words, funding levels are often highest at the “poorest” schools already. Allendale, Lee and McCormick’s school districts each received over $8,500 per student from the state last year. With local and federal money added, they collected between $15,000 and $20,000 in total per-pupil. Beaufort, Charleston and Horry districts took in closer to $3,500 in state aid, with total funding in the $13,000 to $16,000 range.

The question is not how much money should be slated for government schools, where it comes from, or how it is redistributed. The question is how well the money is being spent and what (if any) correlation there is between the level of funding and the achievement of students.

Data from the South Carolina Budget and Control Board show that as total funding for schools rises, the percentage that reaches the classroom drops. Today it is less than 45 cents per dollar. One of the largest drop-offs in instructional spending occurred in the run up to Act 388’s implementation, which saw a massive binge in school construction.

That controversial act – another contentious plan to swap local taxes for state ones – has been cited as a reason for the new tax hike. While the 388 “swap” was intended to slow the growth in local tax collection, total district revenue from local sources has not dropped since 2007. Meanwhile, the state funding in-lieu of local taxes has nearly tripled!

Frustratingly, there is no data reliably tying student performance to education funding levels. Not in South Carolina; not anywhere.

Nationally, South Carolina is ranked 15th highest in income-adjusted per-student spending on public education. Still, four-in-ten students in those public schools will not graduate with a high school diploma. And the best and brightest in the highest performing district (York 4) still earned average SAT scores 200 points below their peers in the best North Carolina district last year. That’s despite a lower testing rate in the South Carolina district. Another billion dollars won’t remedy problems on this scale.

We can’t afford a second Act 388. Pursuing a far-reaching reform on how money is spent would be a better start.

The proposal passed the House early this year and offers tax credit-funded scholarships to low-income and disabled students whose parents elect to send them to private schools or transfer them between different public schools.

House Bill 4894 is closely based on similar programs already operating in Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Arizona. There are two-dozen states that now provide some type of program to expand choices among different types of K-12 schools. This includes North Carolina, which introduced a program last year. Modest deductions are also offered in the South Carolina bill to parents paying tuition or homeschooling costs out of pocket.

The bill has solicited major support from a range of politicians outside of the State Legislature. U.S. Senator Jim DeMint specifically called on members of the Committee to quickly pass the bill on a video posted online last week. The State’s Superintendent of Education Mick Zais and Treasurer, Curtis Loftis, have also spoken out in favor of the legislation, noting that it will help those students whose parents have the fewest educational options. All five of South Carolina’s Republican Congressmen also endorsed the proposal.

Lobbyists representing the School Boards Association (SCSBA) and School Administrators Associations (SCASA) expressed their distaste for the idea, a position they’ve held for nearly a decade. They speculated that the bill could damage education in the state. Parental choice proponent Senators Larry Grooms (R-Berkeley) and David Thomas (R-Greenville) hotly contested that claim at a subcommittee hearing last in early May. “The facts don’t bear that out,” Thomas insisted.

“Parents who are happy with their traditional public schools can stay put. Parents who feel their children aren’t being fully served can choose a more appropriate school,” explained Senator Grooms, who is also one of the bill’s sponsors. “Clearly this is a good thing for the student and the family either way.”

The bill must now receive a simple majority of votes on the Senate floor in order to be sent to the Governor for her signature.

The meeting and vote will begin at 3:00 pm TODAY at the Senate’s Gressette Building, Room 105. Senators will be considering House Bill 4894. It offers tax credit funded scholarships to low-income and disabled students looking to attend nonpublic schools. Parents who can afford independent and homeschooling expenses out of pocket are offered modest tax deductions as well.

Similar programs in other states have helped tens of thousands of children attend the K-12 school of their family’s choice. These programs are affordable, accountable, and already changing students’ lives.

Please contact these State Senators right now and ask them to vote “yes” to sending H.4894 to the Senate floor for an up-or-down roll-call vote!

The same committee passed a $8 billion operational budget for the public school districts this year! Tell them right now: “Vote ‘Yes’ to pass H.4894 out to the full Senate Floor because parental choice is the right choice for students across South Carolina!”

Those listed in bold have spoken or voted against school choice in the past. Please contact them first.

Chairman: Leatherman, Hugh K. R-31 Florence SFinComm@scsenate.gov

Member: Alexander, Thomas C. R-01 Walhalla SGenComm@scsenate.gov

Member: Anderson, Ralph D-07 Greenville RalphAnderson@scsenate.gov

Member: Bryant, Kevin L. R-03 Anderson KevinBryant@scsenate.gov

Member: Courson, John E. R-20 Columbia SEduComm@scsenate.gov

Member: Cromer, Ronnie W. R-18 Prosperity RonnieCromer@scsenate.gov

Member: Elliott, Dick D-28 North Myrtle Beach DickElliott@scsenate.com

Member: Fair, Michael L. R-06 Greenville MikeFair@scsenate.gov

Member: Grooms, “Larry” K. R-37 Bonneau STransComm@scsenate.gov

Member: Hayes, Wes R-15 Rock Hill SEthicsComm@scsenate.gov

Member: Jackson, Darrell D-21 Hopkins DarrellJackson@scsenate.gov

Member: Land, John C. D-36 Manning JohnLand@scsenate.gov

Member: Leventis, Phil P. D-35 Sumter PhilLeventis@scsenate.gov

Member: Matthews, John W. D-39 Columbia JohnMatthews@scsenate.gov

Member: McGill, J. Yancey D-32 Kingstree YanceyMcGill@scsenate.gov

Member: O’Dell, William H. R-04 Ware Shoals WilliamODell@scsenate.gov

Member: Peeler, Harvey S. R-14 Gaffney SMediComm@scsenate.gov

Member: Pinckney, Clementa C. D-45 Ridgeland ClementaPinckney@scsenate.gov

Member: Reese, Glenn G. D-11 Inman GlennReese@scsenate.gov

Member: Ryberg, W. Greg R-24 Aiken SLCIComm@scsenate.gov

Member: Setzler, Nikki G. D-26 West Columbia NikkiSetzler@scsenate.gov

Member: Thomas, David L. R-08 Greenville SBIComm@scsenate.gov

Member: Verdin, Daniel B. R-09 Laurens SAgriComm@scsenate.gov

More information and points of contact for the Senate Finance Committee can be found at http://www.scstatehouse.gov/committee.php?chamber=S#fin

The proposal offers tax credit-funded scholarships to low-income and disabled students whose parents choose to send them to private schools. House Bill 4894 is closely based on similar programs already operating in Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Arizona. Nationwide there are two-dozen states that now provide some type of program to expand choices among different types of K-12 schools, including North Carolina which introduced a program last year.Modest deductions are also offered in H.4894 to parents paying tuition costs out of pocket.

Testifying at the hearing was Jay W. Ragley, Deputy Superintendent for Legislative and Public Affairs at the State Department of Education. Ragley conveyed State Superintendent Dr. Mick Zais’ official support and endorsement for the proposal.

Kathy Lord, a former public school teacher who homeschools her own children also spoke in favor of the plan. “Even the so-called best public or private school may not be the best match for each student seated in it,” said Lord. “Parents are the best ones to make that call, and this program lets them keep a tiny portion of their own [tax] money to do just that.”

Lobbyists representing the School Boards Association (SCSBA) and School Administrators Associations (SCASA) expressed their distaste for the plan, a position they’ve held for nearly a decade. They speculated that the plan could damage education in the state.

Parental choice proponent Senators Larry Grooms (R-Berkeley) and David Thomas (R-Greenville) hotly contested that claim. “The facts don’t bear that out,” Thomas insisted. “Parents who are happy with their traditional public schools can stay put. Parents who feel their children aren’t being fully served can choose a more appropriate school,” explained Senator Grooms, who is also one of the bill’s sponsors. “Clearly this is a good thing for the student and the family either way.”

It remains incredibly important that you contact your state senator. Please contact them at www.mysclegislator.com, and urge them to make sure H. 4894 gets an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

We have compiled an entire page dealing with “School Choice Myths” on this website, and encourage you to use it as a resource for your questions, or questions that others you know may have.

You can read our “Myths” page by clicking here.

Here’s an example of a frequently cited – but inaccurate – statement about why school choice is undesirable for South Carolina.

Myth: Public schools are accredited and accountable. Private schools aren’t.

First off, did you know that public schools are actually accredited by the state? Not all schools are districts have accreditation from 3rd party groups. In fact, only 38-85 public school districts in the state are accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. State schools that fail to meet minimum standards can be kept on prolonged “probation,” instead of facing consequences for failure. The state is even able to waive the requirements for failing schools and districts.

According to Charles O’Malley, Executive Director of the National Council for Private School Accreditation, approximately 96% of all private school students attend schools that are accredited or evaluated by national, regional, or state private organizations. Many private schools subject themselves to dual accreditation procedures of government and private school agencies, while also having to satisfy their paying consumers.