SC PIE - Feature Article

Propaganda would have you believe that the words “minimally adequate education” appear in the South Carolina Constitution. In reality, the precedent was set after a 1999 appeal of the landmark case Abbeville School District v. State of South Carolina. The Court held that the Constitution’s education clause establishing the public school system meant that the education must be “minimally adequate”. In 2008, the Court ultimately ruled in favor of the State, arguing that despite the suing school districts’ claim, the State was providing a “minimally adequate education”.

In response, the activists who lost the suit are moving to amend the Constitution in order to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling. They suggest we need to add words to the Constitution requiring the State to provide a “high quality education”.

I don’t believe there is anyone who would say they don’t want South Carolina children to have access to high quality education- it’s a no-brainer. So why do we need to add it to the constitution? The answer- such a clause would establish strong legal footing for endless lawsuits against the State.

Former Governor Dick Riley, SC Superintendent of Education Jim Rex, and director of the Corridor of Shame documentary Bud Ferillo spearhead the movement to amend South Carolina’s constitution. An interesting connection can also be drawn to President Obama. During his recent State of the Union address, the President recognized a student from Dillon County, who wrote to Congress describing her school. President Obama learned of the Dillon school via Ferillo’s Corridor of Shame and used the school in speeches throughout his presidential campaign.

Unfortunately, many citizens of Dillon are displeased that “Ferillo and company” have taken advantage of their community for political and financial gain. One Dillon District Two employee says the reports of the school are exaggerated and misrepresented, placing a horrible stigma on their students and community. Also of concern is the neglect to mention the bond referendum recently passed to build a new school. It appears that the President, Riley, Rex, and Ferillo have been exploiting Dillon in order to manipulate voters, the courts, the General Assembly and Congress.

So the bureaucrats, who benefit the most from education funding (it’s certainly not the teachers or the children) want to sue “the State”. Who, exactly, is “the State”? Aren’t government schools operated by people employed by the State? So, is the State suing the State? State Government is the people of South Carolina. We are a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”. We fund the government and we elect our government representatives. Will suing the people of South Carolina produce better educational outcomes? How much does suing the people of South Carolina cost the people of South Carolina? Wouldn’t this money be better spent fixing the schools exploited in the Corridor of Shame documentary? Do the math- it adds up to education bureaucrats manipulating and abusing South Carolina students and teachers to squeeze more money from the taxpayer.

In 2008-09, State allocations to public schools totaled $3.2 billion (an increase of 23% since 2004). That equals $11,480 per student (Voice for School Choice). At the same time, Superintendent Rex has tripled the number of employees making $100,000 at his department and added 65 new employees making $50,000 or more since he took office. But, during economic hard times, who are the first employees to be thrown under the bus? Teachers! They are forced to sacrifice their salaries to support these State Department increases.

There is a sensible solution to the inequity of school district funding. Legislation is being considered that doesn’t require litigation, increasing taxes, or sacrificing teacher salaries. House Bill 3181 and the Senate Bill 0395 propose a per pupil funding formula that will require equitable distribution of State education dollars with more fiscal flexibility to districts. Support of this legislation will set the course for high quality education.

Don’t be fooled by the semantics of those activists who want to convince us that adding words to the State Constitution is in the best interest of teachers and children. It is a ploy to position for a lawsuit that will waste more taxpayer dollars that belong in the classroom.