Wednesday, April 07, 2004
THESE ARE YOUR EDUCATORS
I had a listener send me a note recently that pointed out a couple of billboards in and around Columbia, SC that scold drivers for not "fully funding" (whatever that means) public education in South Carolina. So, I checked them out - and sure enough, they come from the South Carolina Education Association...but I had to look really close to find out what they're all about. It was there that I found a screed by the Executive Director of the SCEA, Richard Miller.
In it, he snips and sneers at SC Governor Mark Sanford for having the guts to propose a tax credit for a parent who may want to send their child to a private institution. I won't go into too much detail, but suffice to say - a parent would get a tax credit of up to $4,000 at the end of the year when they fill out their tax forms IF they send their child to a private school, homeschool, or other public school. Of course, proving education can be a bad thing for some people - he laments the goals of the plan because it would be "neglecting public education" and other silly claims.
From the Richard Miller "column":
"...Sanford campaigned on a voucher scheme by any other name -- education passport, opportunity scholarship -- and now it's here...You have to give it to this governor; he's got chutzpah..."
Yes, the words of Al Gore live on - anything out of the normal "more money" mantra is called a "scheme" because we all know "new ideas" are always coming from the worst intentions. And then there's this from Dick Miller:
"...In public, Sanford rolled out a voucher bill despite the fact that vouchers have been proven to deliver no greater results than mere added investment in public schools. No, he says, it's not a voucher bill. It's a 'universal tax credit' bill...When public dollars are used to -- take your pick: subsidize, reimburse, underwrite, pay for -- private or parochial school tuition, it's a voucher..."
Oh, NO! He rolled out his plan in PUBLIC! Factually, of course, the hypothesis is completely backwards. Vouchers (which the plan IS NOT) have delivered greater results...it's the "added investment in public schools" that haven't delivered greater results in more than 30-years. Finally - if you can stomach much more - there's this from Dick:
"...It's also illegal, as clearly stated in South Carolina's own Constitution, Article 11, Section 4. A governor who claims that a legislative override of his veto is unconstitutional surely has spent time poring over his Constitution, and he shouldn't miss the clarity of this section..."
You know, one would think that it would be dangerous for such spinmeisters to include actual searchable information in their columns. But I guess he's not expecting anyone of the teaching class to dare suggest doing research on their own to find out the truth of the matter. Well, being no better than a high school graduate myself, I looked it up.
Here's the actual Article of the SC Constitution...(notice I provided a link so you can see it for yourself):
"Direct aid to religious or other private educational institutions prohibited. No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution."
I'm guessing they hope with only a South Carolina education, you won't be able to interpret that by yourself, but I trust you to know what it says and know what it means. Even Dick himself admits that the credits go to the parents AFTER they apply and pay their tuition to a private institution...no such credit is given to a "religious or other private educational institution"...it's given to the PARENTS. Duh.
You should read the whole article yourself, though...pay particular attention to all of that concern they have "for the children"...the way I read it, it's mostly about them and their own job protection "schemes"...
I had a listener send me a note recently that pointed out a couple of billboards in and around Columbia, SC that scold drivers for not "fully funding" (whatever that means) public education in South Carolina. So, I checked them out - and sure enough, they come from the South Carolina Education Association...but I had to look really close to find out what they're all about. It was there that I found a screed by the Executive Director of the SCEA, Richard Miller.
In it, he snips and sneers at SC Governor Mark Sanford for having the guts to propose a tax credit for a parent who may want to send their child to a private institution. I won't go into too much detail, but suffice to say - a parent would get a tax credit of up to $4,000 at the end of the year when they fill out their tax forms IF they send their child to a private school, homeschool, or other public school. Of course, proving education can be a bad thing for some people - he laments the goals of the plan because it would be "neglecting public education" and other silly claims.
From the Richard Miller "column":
"...Sanford campaigned on a voucher scheme by any other name -- education passport, opportunity scholarship -- and now it's here...You have to give it to this governor; he's got chutzpah..."
Yes, the words of Al Gore live on - anything out of the normal "more money" mantra is called a "scheme" because we all know "new ideas" are always coming from the worst intentions. And then there's this from Dick Miller:
"...In public, Sanford rolled out a voucher bill despite the fact that vouchers have been proven to deliver no greater results than mere added investment in public schools. No, he says, it's not a voucher bill. It's a 'universal tax credit' bill...When public dollars are used to -- take your pick: subsidize, reimburse, underwrite, pay for -- private or parochial school tuition, it's a voucher..."
Oh, NO! He rolled out his plan in PUBLIC! Factually, of course, the hypothesis is completely backwards. Vouchers (which the plan IS NOT) have delivered greater results...it's the "added investment in public schools" that haven't delivered greater results in more than 30-years. Finally - if you can stomach much more - there's this from Dick:
"...It's also illegal, as clearly stated in South Carolina's own Constitution, Article 11, Section 4. A governor who claims that a legislative override of his veto is unconstitutional surely has spent time poring over his Constitution, and he shouldn't miss the clarity of this section..."
You know, one would think that it would be dangerous for such spinmeisters to include actual searchable information in their columns. But I guess he's not expecting anyone of the teaching class to dare suggest doing research on their own to find out the truth of the matter. Well, being no better than a high school graduate myself, I looked it up.
Here's the actual Article of the SC Constitution...(notice I provided a link so you can see it for yourself):
"Direct aid to religious or other private educational institutions prohibited. No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution."
I'm guessing they hope with only a South Carolina education, you won't be able to interpret that by yourself, but I trust you to know what it says and know what it means. Even Dick himself admits that the credits go to the parents AFTER they apply and pay their tuition to a private institution...no such credit is given to a "religious or other private educational institution"...it's given to the PARENTS. Duh.
You should read the whole article yourself, though...pay particular attention to all of that concern they have "for the children"...the way I read it, it's mostly about them and their own job protection "schemes"...
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
