Betraying the Progress SC Schools Have Made

Katherine E. O'Quinn

March 16, 2005

 

I wonder how many South Carolina citizens have received the anonymous phone call asking, “Do you think parents should be in charge of their child’s education?” An obvious answer for any unsuspecting citizen answering would be a resounding “Yes!” This question is being asked all over South Carolina, as well-financed voucher advocates from Michigan, Texas and elsewhere solicit support for the governor’s Put Parents in Charge campaign.

 

Make no mistake: Public education in South Carolina is under attack from numerous out-of-state organizations that advocate legislation that provides tax credits to parents for private school tuition or to home-school their children.

 

Having been an educator for 22 years, I have seen our South Carolina schools outpace the nation in improving students’ scores on standardized tests and continue to rank highest in the nation for improvement of teacher quality. I particularly note the 2004 annual school and district report cards that showed that of more than 1,100 schools, only 28 South Carolina schools rated unsatisfactory.

 

South Carolina public schools have continued to make significant gains since the Education Accountability Act of 1998. Even with increasing rigor in the annual rating scale, our public schools continue to perform at levels higher than ever before. This indicates that parents and teachers are already in charge of our children’s education.

 

Now, we must contend with threats and attacks from those who would divide us into narrow special-interest groups. These groups, along with some of our state leaders, are going to great lengths and spending untold amounts of money to deceive our parents and attack our public schools.

 

The gains that South Carolina public schools have reached are now in jeopardy, with the scheme threatening to drain necessary funds from public education and other state agencies that rely on that support. My concern is for not only the South Carolina public school system, but also for other state agencies that will suffer if such legislation passes.

 

Put Parents in Charge would affect funding for not only the Department of Education, but also for the departments of Transportation, Mental Health, Juvenile Justice and Public Safety, to name a few. Each year, state budgets are cut to the bare bones, and the general fund cannot survive if large tax credits are awarded for each individual child enrolled in private, parochial or home schools.

 

Diverting public money to private venues, without accountability on academic or financial operations, is a slap in the face to the notable progress that continues in South Carolina. Public education is and should continue to be South Carolina’s No. 1 priority. Our goal is to continue to make a difference in the lives of all children in our state — not just a population that represents less than 10 percent of our school-age children.

 

All state leaders need to be reminded that they have a moral and ethical responsibility to strengthen our public schools, not to abandon them. Only by continuing to invest in a strong public education system can we improve the lives of all of our students — draining needed resources from the general fund will not do the trick.

 

We must continue to ensure our public schools continue to fill their role as a cornerstone of the common good, providing the foundation for the civic society that is critical to our democracy.

 

As teachers, we not only want but need parents to be in charge and involved in their children’s education. The answer to school success is strong teachers, effective leaders, parent involvement and continued financial support from our elected officials. We must ensure all of these elements exist in all of our public schools if we are to be assured of a bright future for our community, for our state and for our children.

 

Ms. O’Quinn is Richland School District 2 teacher of the year and vice chairwoman of the Richland 2 Teacher Forum.  This article appeared in The State March 16, 2005.  It appears here with her permission.