This op/ed in the State (South Carolina) is a mixed bag.  Some interesting things are happening with choice: using a new charter law, Republican state rep Bill Cotty is proposing the state government start its own public charters in areas with failing schools as a way to sidestep nasty takeover battles, which politically makes sense.  But the writer–Associate Editor Cindi Ross Scoppe–can’t seem to restrain herself at certain points.

Mr. Cotty says his plan would help students in and out of the charter schools because it “says to local districts there’s a new dog on the block and you need to clean up your own house.”

That sounds a little strange too, since “competition will improve the schools” is one of the main arguments put forward by those who want to give vouchers or tax credits to parents who send their kids to private schools — a proposal Mr. Cotty has been at the forefront of fighting off.

I would tend to agree that this puts Cotty in a rather uncomfortable position (if competition is a virtue for public charters, why is it a downside for vouchers?).  But is Scoppe rejecting the notion?  She seems to, but won’t quite go there. 

And the plan is susceptible to one of the same criticisms he and I and others have of the private school plans: It would trap kids who don’t have active, involved parents in failing schools that might become even worse once the best students with the most motivated parents move out.

Translation: we must not make school choice available, because the wrong people might just take advantage of it!  I’ve commented before on similar prejudices against KIPP, and this column betrays a similar (and similarly disturbing) mindset: no matter how badly some parents want options for their children, they must remain confined where they are. 

In fact, I have a suggestion for Scoppe: if those highly motivated parents and their children must remain in those schools, why don’t we do the next best thing: exchange them for your children!  She sounds like a very involved parent, and I’m sure her child will work wonders helping a low-achieving school improve! 

Moreover, his plan addresses what he calls the one legitimate point made by those pushing for vouchers or tax credits — that kids in poor-performing schools don’t have time to wait for those schools to get better.

Mr. Cotty bills his plan as “an alternative, with none of the waste involved in tax credits and vouchers.” Unlike private-choice plans, which would “waste 90 percent of the money” on people who can afford to pay for their private choices, his plan would be limited to poor students in poorly performing schools in poor districts — those who truly don’t have any alternatives.

If you want to make sure low-income families are the primary beneficiaries, there’s a very simple solution that has been successfully applied in lots of school choice programs: insert a means-tested requirement in the legislation.  Cotty’s desire to get kids some educational options is commendable.  But his arguments against vouchers and tax credits are both tired and substanceless, and this one most of all. 

Mr. Cotty is convinced that the anonymous financial interests backing “Put Parents in Charge” would oppose his plan because they wouldn’t get any money, and he might be right. Nor would it satisfy people who simply want to send their kids to private schools, and think the state should help pay for that.

Look, I don’t question that there have been a lot of issues over donor disclosure in South Carolina.  But naturally, Scoppe goes from there to conclude that this is just a money grab on the part of a lot of greedy privatizers, an awfully big jump indeed. 

Unlike the voucher plan, the Cotty plan keeps public money in a system that is accountable to the public for its results. And best of all, it has the potential to actually fulfill the entirely unrealistic promise of vouchers and tax credits — that is, to provide a good education to children who attend those schools that are mired in poverty and thus far highly resistant to improvement.

Finally, buried in the very last paragraph, we get to the accountability canard.  Scoppe is doing her level best to assert that a) school choice programs lack any semblance of accountability, and b) there’s no possible remedy to the situation.  So I’ll just repeat what I’ve said in the past:

• Calls for accountability assume that parents are too stupid to see if a school is doing a good job teaching their children. 

• As I’ve already said in response to the Palm Beach Post (which appears to be the State’s inspiration in writing about school choice), the idea that schools are presently unaccountable or avoid measures like standardized testing is utterly absurd.  The vast majority of private schools already administer accountability measures, because it’s in their interest to do so.  Furthermore, if voucher schools fail, they end up closing down–unlike public schools, which manage to stay open (and have historically successfully lobbied for spending increases) in spite of poor performance. 
• As Scoppe herself said in the second paragraph of this piece: "The whole idea behind charter schools, after all, is to let parents and other interested community members run their own public schools. They can bypass some state regulations as long as they prove students are learning what the state says they need to know."  In other words, charter schools can be held accountable.  Replace the word "charter" with the word "voucher," and Scoppe will have stated my point precisely: set a minimum level for achievement, and let schools do their thing.  But in Scoppe’s world, aside from the recent legislation passed in Milwaukee and Florida, there’s just no way to use the same approach for voucher schools.