EDITORIAL: The 'Put Parents in Charge Act'—you can’t tell a bill by its title
By Bill Settlemyer
Executive Publisher
In the world of politics, one of the oldest tricks in the book is to draft a complex legislative proposal and give it a title that makes it sound like motherhood and apple pie.
Case in point: Gov. Sanford’s “Put Parents in Charge Act.” Gee, is anyone opposed to “putting parents in charge” or “restoring parental control of education?” Not likely. But before you cast your vote, let’s take a closer look at this turkey of a bill, more accurately titled the “Put Money in Parents’ Pockets Act.”
Open mind—boggled mind
I’ve long been a staunch supporter of public education, and I’ve had a few spirited debates recently with proponents of the proposed legislation. Along the way, the Governor’s Office sent me an article by Harvard professor Paul E. Peterson. I read it carefully and noted this observation by Peterson:
Most voucher programs are focused on low-income or otherwise disadvantaged families, because their children are the ones least well served by traditional public schools. Voucher proponents point out that middle income whites can pick their school by moving into a desired neighborhood or using a private school, while low-income blacks cannot easily do so.
By that test, the Put Parents in Charge Act fails right out of the gate. The primary benefit of this mind-numbing piece of legislation is a massive tax cut for middle and upper income parents of children attending private schools. As best I can tell, the proposed dollar-for-dollar tax credits will reduce the taxes of virtually every parent with children currently in private schools by up to $3,700 per student.
If you’re one of those parents and you’re about to write me an angry letter about how expensive private school is and how you really need the money and how public schools cannot provide the education your child needs, hold the phone—I understand your point.
The problems are these, among others: (1) Can the state, struggling to recover from huge deficits and cutting programs left and right, afford the reduction in tax revenues? How much will this cost the state? (2) Despite claims that public education funding won’t be hurt, how credible is that assertion given the state’s dire financial condition coupled with the continuing bout of “tax cut fever?” How will the state meet its obligations for public education or other pressing needs if we just keep cutting revenue collections?
The kindness of strangers
Getting back to the quote from Professor Peterson, let’s make this clear: Any benefit from this act for public school children living in poverty will, quite literally, be dependent on “the kindness of strangers.”
The idea is that “Scholarship Granting Organizations” will be set up voluntarily by people who choose to do so for charitable purposes. These SGOs will solicit funds and the donors will get a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for their contributions. The apparent expectation is that at least some of the scholarship money will be awarded to kids living in poverty.
As with the other tax credits, this money comes straight out of the state’s coffers in the form of reduced tax collections. As I read the bill, the SGOs have no obligation to give any of their scholarship money to students living in poverty; unlike students from upper and middle class families, the poor will be dependent on the kindness of strangers. Is this how the state plans to “fix the problem of failing schools?”
Accountability—for public schools only?
We’ve done a brilliant job of making public schools accountable, testing kids to death and piling federal requirements on top of state laws. But there are no accountability provisions in this legislation for private schools even though they would be receiving millions in back-door state subsidies via the proposed tax credits.
Sure, we have many excellent private schools in South Carolina–but not all are excellent or even good, and past experience in “voucher states” like Florida and Wisconsin has produced horror stories of fraud and corruption by people who saw a chance to take advantage of the lack of regulation.
Private schools that get state money should be held accountable. I don’t have room on this page to go into enough detail on this, so let me refer you to an excellent article by The Post and Courier’s Seanna Adcox in that newspaper’s March 7, 2004 edition, available online at www.charleston.net (search for “accountability of school plan questioned”).
Bottom line? Cut the bull. If we’re going to do a voucher program, let’s call it that and do it right. No back door tax credits; be honest about the real cost of the program; focus the funding on the neediest children first; and provide for full private school and SGO accountability up front instead of waiting until the scandals erupt.
View as PDF
|
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version