SC "School Choice" Bill Will Not Apply To VAST Majority Of Students Due To Bill's Definition Of "Eligible Student," A Simple Change Could Fix It
80-90% of SC Students Ineligible For Program Under H3976. See What Legislators & Activists Like Corey Deangelis Say Could Help Include More Students.
Subscribe To Our Email Newsletter Here At theovertonreport.substack.com
In South Carolina, we are used to our state legislators playing some pretty questionable games with bills. The back and forth that goes on behind the scenes is enough to make even a seasoned politician’s stomach turn. However, the latest information coming to the surface regarding bill H3976 has many who have been fighting for school choice in our state education system seething. This includes some of the original (soon to be former) sponsors of the bill itself.
School choice has become a hot topic throughout most of the nation. Over the year 2021 alone, the number of states that have passed school choice bills into law has doubled, with no signs of slowing down. Some of the reasons for the growing popularity of school choice include constant failures by the government school system to teach children basic reading comprehension and mathematics, along with growing evidence of Critical Race Theory, and the 1619 Project guiding the philosophy of many school districts around the country. The 1619 project, of course, was created by New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones, and built upon by radical grad students and journalists. It has been generally panned as propaganda because of its myriad historical inaccuracies and anecdotal style by historians nationwide, even those who agree generally with its purpose. When you add to this mix schools shutting down throughout America over the past 2 years due to Covid protocols, the topic of school choice has only gotten hotter.
The fight for school choice has become one between the bureaucracy of the education system (and those that have a stake in the failing status quo), versus nearly everyone else. Parents are tired of seeing their children fail, and fed up with seeing their tax dollar being pumped into terrible schools that only seem to get worse every year while ignoring the core issues facing students. It does seem counterintuitive to continue pumping money into schools that prove themselves to be incapable of teaching even basic reading comprehension and mathematics to children. Yet, the system as it stands makes it a point to prop up failure, just like most bureaucracy tends to do.
So, when a school choice bill came up in South Carolina, parents and conservative lawmakers alike were understandably excited. Finally, parents would be able to pick which school their child would attend, based on the ability of the school to teach their students, rather than based on the zip code in which they happened to live. The money would follow the student, and schools would have to compete for enrollment, forcing them to take a new look at failing policy and innovate their teaching methods in order to remain competitive and open. The concept is one based on the free market of competing ideas, rather than rewarding the failed and inefficient, wasteful policies that are consistently proven not to work.
That was the initial hope of H3976, the Education Scholarships Account.
However, the definition of “Eligible Student” within the bill is drawing ire from activists, parents, and state legislators alike. It’s hard to pin down whether this definition was snuck in when the bill was first created, or whether it was added at a later date. Nobody we have spoken to seems to have that answer.
We spoke to a number of activists and legislators about the questionable eligibility requirements, including well-known leader in the fight for school choice, and director of research for federationofchildren.org Corey DeAngelis. He told us "Now is the time to open up school choice for every student.” With that being said, he also pointed to a simple amendment that would increase the number of eligible students by a significant amount, if the opposition to universal school choice is currently too much to overcome in one fell swoop. He suggests reworking the definition of “eligible student” to mean any student who is eligible for reduced lunch. While this would still be an incremental step towards the ultimate goal, it would help to silence the panic-driven oppositional voices from those who hold major stakes in the status quo while increasing eligibility to a major swath of students who remain ineligible under the current definition.
Making that change would help put to rest the “sky is falling” attitude that is all too common among those who stand to lose by being made to change the failing practices in the SC educational system. As we have seen, failure is too often rewarded when it comes to educational bureaucracy; both in this state, and others.
Lin Bennett (R), SC State House Rep for District 114 was one of the first sponsors and proponents of this bill. But with this questionable definition of what an eligible student means being brought to her attention, she has stated that she can “no longer sponsor or support this bill” unless the definition is changed to include more middle and working class families in addition to those who are impoverished.
Stewart Jones (R), State House Rep for District 14 is another sponsor on the bill. When we spoke with him, he was concerned about the definition. He said, “This bill must be amended to allow every child in South Carolina to have more choice in education, and we will be having serious discussion at the state house in the coming days about this.”
As you saw in the screen shot of the bill’s definitions, the term “Eligible Student” is defined in part (c) as one “that has an annual adjusted gross family income of two hundred percent or less of the federal poverty guidelines…” or part (d) “…participated in the South Carolia Early Reading Development and Education program,” or part (e) “previously received an ESA Scholarship…” This is where the problem lies. Each of the programs listed in parts (d) & (e) have similar requirements to part (c) of this section on definitions. In order to take part in ESA scholarships or the ERDE program, one must be at 185% or less of the poverty line. You can read more on the ERDE program by clicking here.
Please Consider
Supporting The Overton Report By Donating
Here!
The end result of this means that somewhere between 80-90% of South Carolinian students will be entirely excluded from this so called “School Choice Bill” simply because of a lawyer’s trick of changing definitions. If you have been keeping up with the madness over the past couple of years, you are already well aware that manipulating definitions is one of the favorite games of bureaucrats, politicians, and the academic establishment. So, while this isn’t surprising, in that sense, it is disheartening.
There are around 1 million South Carolinians under the age of 18, and 23% of those, according to scchildren.org live at or below the poverty line. It has been difficult to find which percentage are at 200% or below this federally defined line, but it is obviously less than the entirety of the 23% mentioned at that link. Best case scenario, around 12-15% of those one million SC children will be eligible for the school choice program offered by H3976, excluding nearly every single middle class working family and their student-aged children. This bill seems to be big on bluster, but short on substance.
Many of the groups and organizations who have been in the fight for school choice, among other educational issues, are withdrawing their support for this bill as well. Christi Dixon, the leader of the Berkeley County chapter of Moms For Liberty is quoted as saying, unequivocally, “Competition between schools for students creates better schools for everyone. Educational dollars should follow every student to the school of their choice, regardless of the income level of that child’s parents,” and she is not alone in feeling this way.
The fact of the matter is that the “status quo” in South Carolina’s educational system is failing students and teachers alike. This is undeniable to anyone who takes a real, objective look at the state of affairs in the bureaucracy of the SC Department of Education. Unfortunately, there is a massive bloc of administrators and bureaucrats who depend on the status quo remaining untouched, because the same redundancies and failures of that status quo is what they depend upon for their bread and butter. Yet everywhere we look we see more and more evidence of the untenable nature of this failing system.
Teacher vacancies have reached a 20 year high in South Carolina prompting legislators to offer raises upwards of $4,000 in an effort to fill those empty spots. Teachers who disagree with the woke-left’s attempted indoctrination of children are being brow-beaten to the point where they are afraid to speak out against it. Leftist activists who can hardly spell, themselves, are demanding control over the education (or, rather, RE-education) of students not only here in South Carolina, but all over the nation. This ever-growing divide between those with a stake in the failing status quo and the parents of students who want to see their children succeed in life rather than be failed by woke doctrine is growing larger than ever. And stuck in the middle is the innocent student who wants to learn how to write but instead has administrators and activists disguised as teachers intent on telling them WHAT to think, rather than teaching them HOW to think.
These problems are not going away, and there is no silver bullet. The tricky definition change that has taken place with H3976 is a perfect example of how those in power within any given bureaucracy or overly bloated institution can take something that could be effective, wonderful, and life changing for the better, and turn it into a big nothing-burger. These tricks are nothing new in the South Carolina state legislature, but what is new is the growing number of citizens who have woken up to the realization that the status quo is not working.
Those citizens, including us here at The Overton Group, aren’t going anywhere, and we all have our magnifying glasses and microscopes out. To those in the failing educational bureaucracy, as well as all of the other bloated departments in this state, we say this: “Don’t get comfortable, we are watching now, and we won’t be changing the channel anytime soon.” (I’m looking at you, SCDHEC) (You too, SCDOT)
To the legislators who have previously sponsored this bill, it’s time to change this definition to include those students whose parents pay the taxes used in the school system, in allowing those parents and students to choose which schools are best for them. This bill that could have been a great step in the right direction has been made nearly toothless due to an insidious revision of the definition of a single phrase: “Eligible Student.”
Further Reading On The Increased Support For School Choice In America Can Be Found At These Links:
https://www.federationforchildren.org/new-poll-72-support-for-school-choice/
https://www.federationforchildren.org/school-choice-victories/
There is another much broader school choice bill that would serve ALL children...not only disabled and very poor, but all children in public school whose parent's believe their children would thrive better in a different learning environment....the P.A.C.E. (Providing Academic Choice in Education) Scholarship Bill, S0903 and H4772. These companion bills were introduced this legislative session...they were crafted by parent groups working together across the state. They currently are sitting in the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee....they would provide true school choice for all SC children as oppossed to the bill referenced in the article...which is simply a politician's bill to check the box for school choice! Please contact the legislators in the committees referenced above to get this bill moving and voted out of committee!