We know this much to be true: middle-class and wealthier parents can move into school districts with better schools; poor parents, especially in rural areas of South Carolina, are stuck with poorer schools. This situation exists from one end of America to the other, but it's particularly noticeable in South Carolina where rural schools are also frequently all black.
Basically, Democrats wish to end local funding and create a state school system. Even if they don't admit it, they want to destroy local control of schools, their reasoning being that local control has produced severe inequities in places such as the so-called Corridor of Shame.
Republicans mistrust the idea that bureaucrats, be they in Columbia or in Washington, know what's best on the local level. Many also remain unconvinced that lack of money has perpetrated district inequities. Whether or not the justices of the state supreme court should dictate solutions continues to be a bone of contention.
Despite our local rag's attempts to portray the last quarter century as stagnant on these issues, much has changed. For those who wish state control, no other measures will be enough.
"Legislators point to recent laws and hundreds of millions in budget increases as evidence they're addressing the problem."
"GOP leaders, including then-Gov. Nikki Haley, have accused justices of not taking into account the "Read to Succeed" law passed months before the 2014 ruling, which, among other things, required reading coaches and summer reading camps. It also called for eventually expanding statewide a full-day pre-kindergarten program for at-risk 4-year-olds, an initiative long pushed by Democrats. Three years later, 64 of 80 districts are eligible for the program created in 2006 as a limited pilot for suing districts."
"Changes since the ruling include a new allocation for districts with the highest teacher turnover. About $7 million was distributed last year to 30 districts, used primarily for training and salary stipends. A college loan-forgiveness program, which could eventually erase up to $35,000 in student debt if teachers stay in a high-turnover district, became newly available this school year."
"And 51 districts are splitting $56 million this school year for building improvements. A bill to borrow up to $200 million a year for dilapidated schools is awaiting action in the Senate."
"But legislators have yet to tackle the antiquated, fractured funding 'scheme' justices faulted in its 2014 order as the key problem." [italics mine]
Nowhere does the state constitution imply that the judiciary has the right to decide how schools are funded.
There's a further flaw in current thinking. Apparently many believe teacher turnover in rural districts is purely a product of lower salaries.
"A separate Senate panel, appointed in May, will issue recommendations before the Legislature returns in January, focusing on what it will take to attract and keep quality teachers in rural schools, said its co-chair, Sen. Vincent Sheheen, D-Camden."
"That's a central part of addressing the court order. As shown at trial, teacher turnover is especially high at rural districts that pay thousands less than their counterparts. Filling slots involves long-term substitutes, international teachers and those teaching outside their field." Virtually guaranteeing more turnover!
That "separate Senate panel" would do well to interview present and past teachers in the districts concerned to discover what teaching conditions would make them want to stay.
It's not all about the money, folks!
Back in the dark ages a century or so ago, districts actually provided housing for teachers. That's not necessarily an answer, but it's past time for some thinking outside of the box!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment