An Answer to What It Means to Be ‘For Public Schools’

By NINA BROOK
associate editor

MOST ELECTED OFFICIALS claim to be “for public education.” But what does that mean?

Several people involved with the Friends of Education coalition decided it would be helpful to outline the definition of “pro-public education.” Next week, Pee Dee Education Consortium Director Tom Truitt, Olde English Consortium Director Mike Fanning and Cecil Cahoon of the South Carolina Education Association will send a document outlining pro-public education principles to members of the General Assembly. They are asking lawmakers to sign the “Pledge of Defined Support for PreK-12 Public Education.” They will distribute a list of those who sign at May 15’s March for Education Equity.

The pledge reads, in part, “Among the state’s essential services and institutions for its people, none but public education is specifically named and included in the state’s Constitution. This fact reflects public education’s status as South Carolina’s highest priority.”

Many lawmakers argue they meet that charge because education spending makes up more than half the state budget. But many of those lawmakers have made decisions that are detrimental to public schools. They have adopted ill-crafted local property tax breaks and refused to fully fund them. They hide behind claims to have increased funding for public education when all they have done is partially restore devastating budget cuts.

The pledge defines five principles for measuring whether a lawmaker’s actions support public education:

Fully fund a system of free PreK-12 public education for all the state’s children, of first priority among the state’s obligations, determining the cost based upon real costs and funding models represented by the most recent factual data or the best projections available from the State Department of Education, Board of Economic Advisors and local school districts.

Accepting that part of the pledge would mean fully funding the base student cost as defined by the 1977 Education Finance Act. That ties increased education funding to objective indicators, such as inflation. The formula could stand to be tweaked to recognize things such as the increasing use of technology in schools and the increasing diversity of student populations — to include the challenge of teaching non-English speakers. But this emotion-free formula, or something close to it, should drive annual changes in education funding.

Adopt no program or reform to be implemented by school districts without full funding of that program or reform by the state.

Known as “unfunded mandates,” requirements placed on school districts without funding drain classroom dollars. Dr. Truitt says this provision of the pledge doesn’t require lawmakers to break a “no-new-taxes” vow, as long as they put schools first and budget for other things as state revenue allows. He argues that lawmakers should pay for the educational system they require: “That’s what the procedure should be, rather than saying, ‘We’re going to give you what we have left over and you produce a high-quality education.’”

In defense of Article 11 of the South Carolina Constitution, in my remarks and my official acts, I will support South Carolina’s system of PreK-12 public education for all the state’s children. I will support strengthening and improvement of that system and will not speak or act to effectively undermine it; and I will oppose vouchers/tuition tax credits, or such plans that have similar effects.

The public schools are open to all children. While some parents can — and should if they want to — choose another option for their own children, state tax dollars must not be siphoned away from public schools for that purpose.

I will consult the opinions of practicing educators and their representatives, will make myself available to them consistently, and will consider their expertise in the shaping of policy and statute.

I recently had the chance to sit in on interviews for teacher of the year in Richland District 2. Trustee James Price asked each candidate how he or she would convince lawmakers not to cut education funding. To a man and woman, they said, “Invite them to visit my classroom.” The majority of state lawmakers who are underfunding education are out of touch with the needs in today’s public schools, and it shows.

I will ensure that all South Carolina children have equitable access to public education, regardless of geographic location and boundaries, physical characteristics and abilities, or the social and economic status of these children and their families.

For too long, South Carolina lawmakers have been content to let many children in urban and suburban districts get a good education while others — particularly those in poorer, rural counties — were left behind. The 21st century economy has no way to support the dropouts that strategy produces.

These five principles truly represent a pro-public education point of view that puts students and classrooms first. The people involved with drafting them left off some individual issues that are very important to each of their own constituencies — things such as preserving the TERI plan, for example — and concentrated on the basics. So beware of anyone who tries to portray this pledge as something generated by “the teachers union” or a special interest. These are mainstream values that are the bedrock of our society. Any lawmaker who means it when he or she vows to support public education should have no problem signing this pledge.

Reach Ms. Brook at (803) 771-8458 or nbrook@thestate.com.

This article is used with the permission of the author.