Posted on 02/08/2006 8:35:21 AM PST by FreeKeys
When Mark and Jenny Sanford moved from Charleston to Columbia, S.C., they had a big concern: Where would their kids go to school? They wanted to send their kids to public school, but the middle school near their new home was not particularly good. But it turned out that this wouldn't have been a problem for the Sanfords because the reason they had moved to Columbia was Mark had just been elected governor. While students are normally assigned to schools based on where their house is located, Gov. Sanford's family was offered special options: People from better school districts invited them to send their kids to those schools.
"And I said, well, that's not fair," first lady Jenny Sanford told me. She asked one school official whether her neighbors were stuck with their local school, and he said they were. "But we're going to waive that requirement because you're the governor."
Caught between taking advantage of that special privilege and denying their sons a good education, the Sanfords escaped to private school, an option that many other Americans, once the taxman has taken his cut, cannot afford. It was an option Gov. Sanford, especially after this experience, didn't think should be reserved for the rich or the powerful. He said state tax credits should help parents pay for private schools.
From the uproar the governor's plan generated, you would think that South Carolina had a great school system in place and that the governor wanted to demolish it. But it doesn't, and he didn't. South Carolina has a school system where half the students who enter high school fail to graduate in four years, a system so bad that the state's first lady thought that sending her sons to their zoned school would "sacrifice their education." And the governor didn't propose to abolish the public schools. He just tried to introduce competition. Public schools that could convince families they were providing a quality education would still have had plenty of students.
Living in America, we have plenty of examples of how competition improves lives. The phone company was once a government-supported monopoly. All the phones were black and all the calls expensive. It was illegal to plug in an answering machine. (Installing a foreign device, the monopoly called it.) But once AT&T lost monopoly status -- poof! -- suddenly customers mattered. Now, thanks to competition, you get a number of calling plans to choose from, and phone calls are much more affordable -- whether you choose AT&T or not.
Competition is, in general, better than monopoly -- and in this case, the monopoly was already failing. Even if you're not a big fan of the free market, why would you want to preserve a monopoly that's obviously doing a bad job? How could allowing choice possibly have been worse than keeping students trapped in failing public schools?
The governor announced his plan last year. Thousands of parents cheered the idea. But most public educators and politicians didn't.
School boards and teachers unions objected. PTAs even sent kids home with a letter saying, "Contact your legislator. How can we spend state money on something that hasn't been proven?"
(Apparently, it was better to spend state money on something that had been proven not to work.)
The governor's plan "would decimate public education in South Carolina, and it's just not good for us," said State Representative Todd Rutherford.
The teachers union paid for ads that argued schools were getting better. Legislators obediently voted down the governor's plan, 60-53.
The state superintendent of schools, Inez Tenenbaum, was relieved. "It was an unproven, unaffordable, and unaccountable plan," she told me.
It may have been unaccountable in the bureaucratic sense -- lacking the arbitrary supervision of some appointed head honcho -- but it would have been the essence of accountability in a much more meaningful way: Schools would have had to satisfy students and parents, or they would have lost their customers.
And unproven? Yes. It was unproven because the bureaucrats, the teachers' unions and their legislative allies are vigilant in their efforts to prevent anyone from trying it. They've gotten their hands on America's children, and they have no intention of letting go.
The way Stossel keeps speaking the plain truth, no wonder he's becoming a bit of a pariah to other "journalists."
Simple math shows that vouchers do not take money from schools.. .in fact, they increase per-student funding. But try telling that to the American people over the shrill screams of the teacher's unions.
We don't have teacher unions here in SC. As a SC citizen, I would like to know what teachers unions are the ones cited in this article. It offends me that people from another state not involved in the day to day education of our state's children are trying to take from tax-paying parents an opportunity to offer their child the best possible future.
The unions in Cali spent so much on ads to defeat Arnold's propositions last fall that the props went down in flames. Now the unions don't want to have to disclose what they spend members money on. The unions have a death grip wherever the Dems are in charge. I respect this Governor and hope he is able to bring about the reforms needed, this sort of thing really is 'for the children'.
nothing new here, but a good story well written.
Because liberals are only interested in allowing "choice" when that choice is to kill a baby.
Hang on a minute. I saw the show this was based on. Stossell interviewed a flesh & blood person, a lady who was there as an official representative of teachers, and the person who was primarily responsible for defeating the proposal. Not calling her a union rep is just playing semantics and doesn't in the least change Stossel's underlying point.
Did you see "Stupid in America", the 20/20 episode that this article is based on?
Well excuse me for posting a plural:
Union. Teachers' Union. The SCEA. Singular. There. Happy now? THE South Carolina Teachers' Union website is HERE.
That wasn't the problem (it's a great article containing a discussion of Proposition 75).
The NEA, institutionalizing mediocrity since 1857.
This seems to be another in an ongoing series of columns based on the research Stossel did for his "Stupid in America" special.
Previous posts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1569307/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1564973/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1560515/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1557274/posts
thanks for those links, i forgot who Strossel was for second. Yes, I REALLY liked a lot of his previous stories (and this one too). I also like gov Sanford. Strossel is doing some fantastic work.
I live in South Carolina as well and the only saving grace I have is that my children attend a great charter school. Mr. Stossel is correct and Inez Tannenbaum has been a disaster in her position as Sec of Education.
No I didn't, but a friend of mine who teaches in a local public school did. She said Stossell made Inez Tennenbaum look like a total idiot (which from what I have heard is not to difficult to do). She also said she had responded to Stossell via his email link from the show and she told him that she and her husband would not be sending their kids to public schools. But like I said, we do not have teacher unions here, but we do have what is called The Palmetto Teacher's Association which is pretty close. That organization does not have the pull or resources a real union has (althought I'm sure they would love to get it).
Thanks for the info- I know many teachers and none of them have ever mentioned that organization to me. Thankfully I never got a call from them during the election! I'm still thanking my lucky stars Tennenbaum didn't win her election.
From the article:
South Carolina has a school system where half the students who enter high school fail to graduate in four years, a system so bad that the state's first lady thought that sending her sons to their zoned school would "sacrifice their education."
Your comment in response: people from another state not involved in the day to day education of our state's children are trying to take from tax-paying parents an opportunity to offer their child the best possible future.
This is the best possible future ?
Your post makes no sense, unless you are a government bureaucrat or one of those teachers who are failing the kids.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.