End of Education Part 4

The End of Education

Part 4:

The Business Case

October 14, 2006

INTRODUCTION TO PART 4

In a global economy, American workers cannot compete by making American wages; they can compete only by making third-world wages.

Now, you may ask, “What does that have to do with the end of education?” (And you certainly should ask…)

Let’s take a little walk-and-talk journey from the recent past into the future – the future as your kids and your grandkids will see it.

THE RECENT PAST

In the last two sessions of the South Carolina General Assembly [1], several dozen education bills have been introduced. Several of those have been passed while several others are being held over for further consideration. The following is a list of some of the things addressed in proposed legislation:

· Five bills [2] have been introduced to eliminate the election of the State Superintendent of Education. These bills would make the State Superintendent of Education an appointee of the Governor – making the Governor the only elected advocate for public education. Think of the possibilities – as you consider the advocacy for public education of the current Governor.

· One bill [3] would create a statewide school district to be funded with a 3% sales tax increase and the elimination of all property tax. This bill would also eliminate the State Board of Education, all local school districts, all local school boards, and all local superintendents. Local schools would be run and controlled from Columbia – with all the efficiency and effectiveness that that implies.

· Two bills [4] would consolidate smaller school districts into larger districts based on county boundaries. The number of school districts and the size of all school districts would be determined by a consolidation committee appointed by the Governor; that committee would have the power to consolidate districts regardless of local issues. When you mix and match those possibilities with the creation of a statewide school system (see above bullet), it’s easy to see that local involvement in public schools will no longer exist – but there would be much more efficient management from the state level (now, if I can just get my tongue out of my cheek…).

· Two bills that have been enacted into law [5] create the South Carolina Public Charter School District, which will be run from Columbia. The statewide charter school system will be funded by taking money from local school boards and giving it to the administrators of any charter school that wants to operate in the local school district. Although approval of the charter school is granted in Columbia and funds are taken from the local school district by Columbia to operate the charter school, the local district is responsible for the academic success of the charter school – although the charter school has complete control of its academic program and the selection of personnel.

· Six bills [6] would enact Governor Sanford’s voucher and tuition tax credit program (Put Parents in Charge [7]). Although the Governor’s vouchers and tuition tax credits have previously been defeated in the General Assembly, out-of-state groups are funding several special interest groups in an all-out effort to move state tax dollars from public schools to private schools. The 2006 elections of the Governor and the Superintendent of Education are seen, by those groups, as a referendum on state funding for private schools – and this is the exact reason the elections are so important for public education. “Private public schools” – private schools that take state money but won’t take your kids – are just around the corner.

· One bill [8] would provide a tax deduction for each student who transfers from a public school to a private school or who is home-schooled. In effect, the state will pay parents to keep their kids at home…

· One bill [9] would allow students to attend any public school in the state regardless of local school attendance zones, school district boundaries, or county boundaries. And those families with work-at-home moms and good cars will be able to go to schools in other counties while those families without the time and transportation resources will be left behind.

· One bill [10] would establish a committee to examine public and private school choice. There would be 25 members of the study committee, six of whom would be related to public education, four of whom would represent the business community, seven of whom would represent the Governor and members of the General Assembly, and eight of whom would represent private schools and home schools. This bill would lay the foundation for the creation of “public private schools” for well-to-do families and the re-organization of public schools into training schools for everyone else’s kids.

· One bill [11] would change everything related to “vocational” education to “career and technology” education. The bill specifically lists things like “vocational education,” “vocational programs,” and “vocational training” – each of which would become “career and technology education,” “career and technology programs,” and “career and technology training.” Although the bill does not provide for any changes in the content of the courses formerly known as “vocational education,” it does try to make “vocational education” more sexy by calling it something else. [12]

· Two bills that have been passed into law [13] as the “South Carolina Education and Economic Development Act” create public school curriculum that is organized around a career cluster system. Every public school student, when he or she enters the ninth grade, must choose a career cluster and must be trained in that cluster. Academic standards will be integrated into that training. This law ties the public schools to training students instead of educating them – while those families who want an education for their children and who can afford to do so will be sending their children to the “public private schools” that are not required to follow the state-mandated curriculum.

· One bill [14] would establish a statewide public school calendar, forcing all districts to begin and end each school year at the same time and to have all the same holidays, teacher work days, and other scheduled events. This bill would eliminate the power of local boards to set calendars that reflect local needs or local events that have an impact on school schedules.

· Other bills [15] might make interesting reading, as well. Many of these are designed to force public schools and other public agencies into actions that would not be in the interest of the schools or agencies. Many are designed to intimidate public school employees and to cause public schools to initiate action that would not be popular within local communities.

That short history of proposed and enacted legislation offers a clear look at the ways in which some state leaders have promoted the abandonment of the state’s public schools – rather than working to improve the single most important function of state government.

You will see, from among those bills, a broad-based attack on public education – an attack designed to end public education – not make it better. Money and words are the weapons. Money will keep public education in chains and words will make folks believe it’s in their interests to do so.

I should apologize for listing so many items – but it is important that that you understand the extent to which organized attacks on public education have been and are being orchestrated. At the same time, please note that the wording of bills may say one thing but mean entirely something else [16]. Also, you should look at each of these bills as a part of a bigger whole.

And that is what the future is about.

YOUR KIDS’ FUTURE

Now, you should ask, “What in the world did all of that have to do with ‘making third-world wages’?” Good question. Let’s answer it directly – in terms that everyone will understand. Dollars and sense.

Dollars and Sense #1

The General Assembly passed the “Property Tax Reform Bill” [17] in May 2006. The new law moved the bulk of funding for public education from property taxes to sales and use taxes.

The sales tax, even with the lowered tax rate on food, is a regressive tax that has a greater impact on poor and middle class families than on wealthy families. Specifically, families that make $100,000 will pay only 2.7% of their incomes in sales taxes, while families that make about $20,000 will pay about twice as much [18] of their families’ incomes in sales taxes. This means that poorer families are less likely to be able to save, invest in retirement, and afford private schools than are their well-to-do counterparts.

The tax reform bill allows homeowners – and especially the owners of high-cost homes – to keep a large amount of money that has previously gone into the state’s tax revenues and, at the same time, spend less of their incomes on sales taxes.

At the same time, poorer families – and especially those who are not homeowners – will continue to pay property taxes and the higher sales taxes.

Now, you should ask how that makes sense – “Why would people who don’t own homes have to continue to pay property taxes – when they don’t own homes?”

The answer is quite simple: People who don’t own homes rent homes. Landlords do not pay property taxes on the properties they rent – because landlords include the cost of their property taxes in the rents they charge their renters. So, the renters pay the property taxes on the places they rent.

Renters, many of whom have lower incomes than homeowners, do not get a tax break because rental property is not included in the property tax reform law; thus, renters continue to pay, as part of their rent, the landlord’s taxes on rental properties – meaning that renters pay higher sales taxes as well as the property taxes on properties they don’t own.

This dollars-and-sense model does nothing but widen the economic gap between the few well-to-do and the many who actually need the resources that will be spent on paying property taxes and increased sales taxes.

Dollars and Sense #2

For public schools, vouchers and tuition tax credits are about money – about money taken from public schools and given, directly or indirectly, to private schools. For families that send their children to private schools, vouchers and tuition tax credits would appear to be about money, as well. However, the amounts of those vouchers and tax credits will probably never have an impact on those families.

If we consider “market-driven” private school enrollment – where there are limited numbers of schools and limited numbers of seats in those schools – vouchers and tax credits are (according to supporters) designed to allow more students to choose those private schools. That means there will more demand for seats than there are seats available. When demand exceeds supply, the price of those seats will go up – at least by the amount of the voucher or tax credit. When the cost of private school goes up more than the voucher or tax credit is worth, only those who could already afford private schools will continue to afford private schools.

That’s just good market-driven sense.

And, in South Carolina, that is what will happen.

It does not matter what the value of the voucher or the tax credit will be – tuition at private schools will increase by at least that amount, based purely on the laws of supply and demand. And the result will be that only the private schools will make money from the vouchers or tax credits. Families who want to send their children to private school will still have to pay an extravagant part of their family incomes in order to do so – unless, of course, they can already afford to do so.

Adding new private schools doesn’t change the formula – because vouchers and tax credits are going to pay only a certain percentage of the costs and families must still pay the rest in tuitions charged by the new private schools.

In the end, the state will spend tax money by sending it to private schools. Parents of private school students will, in the end, see no reduction in their tuition costs because of the market-driven factors. Public schools will lose tax dollars that are sent to private schools for those who can already afford those private schools. [19]

Ultimately, there will be no change in the public schools (except fewer resources). Ultimately, there will be no change for families – whether their children go to private schools or want to but can’t afford to. Ultimately, there will be no change in the private schools’ enrollment. The only change will be that the private schools have more resources to use with the students who are already enrolled.

This dollars-and-sense model does nothing but widen the academic and economic gap between the few well-to-do and the many who actually need the resources that will be wasted on vouchers and tuition tax credits.

Dollars and Sense #3

On a broader scale – one might even say “a global scale” – let’s look at the economics of public education (and this will bring us back to “third-world wages”).

If you’ve been in South Carolina long enough to remember textiles, then you know that business has moved “off-shore” – that is, manufacturing has moved to third-world countries where labor is cheap. Not only is labor cheap – but there is no thought of pensions, health insurance, or other benefits for workers. Those benefits are reserved for selected management positions and executives – those folks who found a way to save money by paying workers less.

If you’ve been in South Carolina as recently as today, you might have seen the headlines [20] stating that South Carolina citizens are losing their homes to foreclosure at a rate almost twice the national average and that South Carolina’s jobless rates have been higher than the national average every year since 2001 (and the gap is growing). Among those with jobs, families are losing their homes because bonuses, raises, and overtime pay have been eliminated by the companies for which they work.

According to the headlined story in today’s edition of The State [21], the National Bureau of Labor Statistics [22] states that manufacturing wages in South Carolina have gone down 6.6% -- more than $1.00 an hour – since the first half of 2005. That compares to a 2.2% decrease nationwide.

Similar decreases in earnings and benefits are being seen in the service industries as well – industries like tourism and hospitality, industries like health care, industries like assisted living, and others.

With more people losing their homes and more people making less money, it is clear that South Carolina’s economy is increasing the economic gap between the few well-to-do and many who are seeing their resources diminish as a direct result of broader economic decisions by business and industry – and by South Carolina’s elected leaders.

Those decisions are being made for the same reasons that other business decisions are being made. It’s not about the quality of the product – the quality of products made off-shore is not better than the quality of the product when it was made in the U.S.A. Those decisions are about the cost of getting that product to market – lowering the cost – but selling it for the same price.

Increasing the economic gap between the “have’s” and the “have-not’s.”

Also note that similar decisions are being made about the education industry in our state – decisions that will cut jobs, earnings, benefits, and other resources currently available to educators.

Dollars and Sense Conclusions

Now, consider the following observations and predictions for South Carolina’s economic future:

· South Carolina wishes to become a center for tourism – an industry that pays low wages to those hired to provide services to tourists – an industry that offers no full-time work – an industry that offers no pension or health benefits – an industry that makes enough money to pull a lot of strings in Columbia.

· South Carolina wishes to become a center for retiring well-to-do folks from other states – an industry that pays low wages to those hired to provide services to retirees – an industry that offers no full-time work – an industry that offers no pension or health benefits – an industry that makes enough money to pull a lot of strings in Columbia.

· There is no business case that shows a middle class in South Carolina can contribute to the general well-being of the economic and educational models envisioned for the state. If there is no business case that shows an advantage to having a middle class, there will be no middle class in South Carolina – the only classes will be those who own the tourist and retirement properties and those who serve the tourists and retirees.

· Special interest groups are lobbying the Legislature daily to send tax dollars to private schools so those private schools will have more resources to offer real educational programs (as opposed to the training programs being implemented in the public schools) for the children of well-to-do families that operate the money-making industries in the state.

· South Carolina has legislated that its public schools will begin, this year in the ninth grade, to train workers for the tourism and retirement industries.

· If South Carolina cannot meet the tourists’ and retirees’ needs, those tourists and retirees will go somewhere else. And their money will go with them. Thus, South Carolina must compete with other states and other countries to provide the goods and services needed by those tourists and retirees.

· In that global economy, South Carolina businesses cannot afford Americans making American wages and cannot afford to pay American benefits (like health insurance and pension plans). The problem for the tourism and retirement industries is that they can’t go off-shore – so, they have to find their labor force where the tourists and retirees want to come.

· That is why, despite the rhetoric about new immigration laws, there will be no such laws. It doesn’t make business sense. In South Carolina, the tourism and retirement industries need workers who are willing to take third-world wages and no benefits. Unrestricted immigration – while being bad-mouthed by politicians – is good business in a global economy. And it creates more demand for fewer jobs – driving down wages, in the process. That business case has already been written.

· If there is no business case for keeping a middle class, there will be no business case for educating a middle class; thus, only private schools are needed for the children of the well-to-do class and only training schools are needed for the remaining working class.

· You can see parallels in higher education, as well. State funding for higher education has been cut dramatically since 2001, sending tuition costs up for families with children in college. Lottery scholarships do not equal the increase in tuition over that period. The ultimate result is that fewer families can afford to send their children to college – meaning that only the well-to-do will have college educations and the middle class will shrink even more (since education is the primary means of moving from poverty to the middle class).

If education – not “training” – is the way out of poverty, there should be no restriction on the availability of a true education for every South Carolina citizen – starting with their public educations.

However, the Governor’s economic and educational philosophy widens the educational gap between the economic “have’s” and “have-note’s” – thus, widening further the economic gap. The Governor’s idea of economic growth sees only the high end of the social and economic scale. His measures of economic growth are based on profits that “trickle down” to the rest of us through our low-paid disenfranchised jobs. [23]

WHAT MUST BE DONE

The above items (plus the information in the endnotes) show the most important differences between Jim Rex, one candidate for State Superintendent of Education, and Karen Floyd, the other candidate. It also points out the major differences between Mark Sanford, the current Governor who seeks re-election, and Tommy Moore, the other candidate.

Tommy Moore and Jim Rex openly support public education and its importance to real economic growth for all South Carolinians. Governor Sanford and Karen Floyd have said that their elections will be seen as a mandate to fund private schools for well-to-do families – resulting in the educational and economic environment described above.

It is important to South Carolina – to the entire state – that our public schools grow to meet the needs of the state. It is important that our state’s leaders not abandon the public schools to the benefit of only the well-to-do and their private schools.

It is important for our leaders to build educational and economic models that will offer opportunity and challenge to all citizens – not just to the “chosen” few (chosen only because of their wealth and influence).

It is important that you vote – and that you support every citizen in our state with your vote. If you do not vote, other folks will make decisions for you, your children, and your grandchildren – and those decisions will limit the opportunities available to them.

Those decisions will replace the American dream with third-world wages and a life-time of struggling to survive.

WHAT’S COMING NEXT

Part 5 will come out next weekend and will include the top ten reasons you’re gonna wanna vote November 7 – and possibly some reasons to support a couple of candidates over the others.

Plan to vote. Plan to make a difference.

And don’t forget to check the endnotes that follow. You’ll miss a lot if you miss the endnotes.

Endnotes

[1] In South Carolina, the term “General Assembly” refers to both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

[2] S0005 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/5.htm), S0030 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/30.htm), S0130 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/130.htm), S0939 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/939.htm), and H4269 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/4269.htm).

[3] H4268 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/4268.htm).

[4] H4327 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/4327.htm) and H4488 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/4488.htm). For more information on the school consolidation bill, see http://home.earthlink.net/~garywwest2/id48.html.

[5] H3010 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3010.htm) and S0260 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/260.htm); passed by the General Assembly April 25, 2006, and signed by the Governor May 3, 2006. For more information about the statewide charter school district, see http://home.earthlink.net/~garywwest2/id48.html.

[6] H3012 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3012.htm), H3204 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3204.htm), H3652 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3652.htm), H4054 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3652.htm), H4534 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/4534.htm), and S1166 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/1166.htm).

[7] For more information about private school vouchers and tuition tax credits for families who send their children to private schools, see http://home.earthlink.net/~garywwest/id61.html. For more information on the strategies used to elect pro-voucher candidates, see http://home.earthlink.net/~garywwest3/id25.html and http://home.earthlink.net/~garywwest3/id22.html.

[8] H3926 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3926.htm).

[9] H4489 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/4489.htm).

[10] H4085 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/4085.htm).

[11] H3245 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3245.htm).

[12] The use of language is important in all marketing, of course. Calling “vocational education” something more sexy is similar to naming vouchers and tuition tax credits something like “Put Parents in Charge.” The wording, as in television commercials and political ads, has nothing to do with what is going on; the wording is just something to make others think something different is going on. It’s like that “All New Look!” label on the newly designed bag that contains the fertilizer for your lawn – it’s still the same fertilizer; it’s just a new bag.

[13] H3155 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3155.htm) and S0122 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/122.htm). Passed by the General Assembly May 19, 2005, and signed by the Governor May 27, 2005.

[14] H3248 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3248.htm).

[15] S0909 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/909.htm), H3871 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3871.htm), H3934 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3934.htm), H3816 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3816.htm), and others.

[16] An example of saying one thing in order to do something else can be found in the wording of the title of S0909. That bill says that the State Board of Education will establish “a curriculum that provides a quality science education that adequately prepares students to distinguish data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science.” On the surface, it sounds reasonable; but its intent was to add religion to the science curriculum and to discredit foundational theories of science such as evolution. Its intent was to define “science” legislatively in religious or philosophical terms rather than in scientific terms. In South Carolina politics, bills are titled as much for their marketing as for their purpose.

[17] H4449, A388, R417 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/4449.htm).

[18] The State; January 24, 2006; “What’s Wrong with this Picture? Poor Would Fund Tax Break for Rich”; Cindi Ross Scoppe; unavailable online.

[19] And, remember, private schools will not be required to administer PACT to measure academic achievement, will not be required to publish school report cards to document that achievement is taking place, will not be required to implement the state’s curriculum standards to ensure that students are achieving what is needed of them, will not be required to hire highly qualified teachers to deliver instruction, and will not be required to account for the money they receive. Public schools will be required to do all those things under the state Education Accountability Act and the misnamed federal No Child Left Behind Act. Despite the demands for competition from private school supporters, there will be no way to measure how private schools perform; thus, there will be no way to compare to the performance of public schools – and thus, there can be no competition between the two separate-and-unequal school systems.

[20] The State; October 15, 2006; “Debt Woes in S.C. Worst in Nation”; Jim DuPlessis; http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/15761363.htm.

[21] The State; http://www.thestate.com/.

[22] National Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/).

[23] If you would like to read about the future of this economic model, re-read 1984 by George Orwell. I re-read it a couple of years ago when it was on the summer reading list for my youngest daughter. It has all the plot twists of a good South Carolina legislative sessions – complete with revisionist history, good guys and bad guys, no middle class, an economy that supports only those at the top of the economic food chain, and Big Brother planning what you will (and will not) be able to do next. It’s worth the read.

About the Author

Gary West has lived in South Carolina for more than 30 years. He has been an educator for all of those years. He doesn’t pay much attention to party lines in elections. He looks at positions on the issues and votes for the people who will do more to make things better for the most people. He believes in less government – but it should be more than less government for business and more government for people. He believes candidates should get past the party rhetoric and actually look for solutions to the actual problems – because no party is always right and no party is always wrong. He believes the same should be true for every voter. Mr. West believes that our problem is people who believe ideology is more important than people.

You can reach Mr. West at garywwest@earthlink.net.

This article and others can be found online at http://home.earthlink.net/~garywwest/. Permission is granted to share this article in electronic or printed format as long as you don’t change it or charge for it. Read responsibly.