| 1. |
Support Needed Improvements to the State Testing System |
|
The Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT) has been used since 1999 to help determine the performance of schools and school districts under the Education Accountability Act (EAA). |
|
The Alliance supports the following improvements: |
| |
- Diagnostic test results that improve teaching and learning |
| |
- Timely availability of test results |
| |
- Less time spent on testing and test preparation |
| |
- Lower cost of administering the tests |
| |
- Same rigor and high standards |
| |
- Better alignment with the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements |
| |
Current Status: House bill 4662 Summary of current bill & related amendment |
| |
Summary slides with more information on performance indicators |
| |
Passed House on Feb. 28; Sent to Senate. |
| |
|
| 2. |
Support Fixing Components of Property Tax Relief unfair to Our Schools |
| |
The formula in the Property Tax Relief Law (Act 388) for reimbursing school districts for lost property taxes on homes will go in effect with the 2008-09 school year. |
| |
Explanation of Property Tax Relief Law |
| |
This formula is unfair to Greenville County Schools. It penalizes our school district because, in comparison to other school districts, Greenville County Schools has:. |
| |
- Low property taxes for school operations |
| |
- Fast enrollment growth |
| |
- Low percentage of students in poverty |
| |
Our school district is further penalized because: |
| |
- Student enrollment grows faster than the county population |
| |
Act 388 created “winner” and “loser” school districts. Greenville County Schools is among the “losers.” |
| |
More information on Needed Changes |
| |
The Alliance supports changing the formula to remove factors that put our school system at a revenue disadvantage compared to other school districts in the state. At the very least, legislators should prevent this formula from going into effect until a new, fairer system of state funding can established.. |
| |
|
| 3. |
Support Repeal of the Local Millage Limitation Law (Act 602) |
| |
A statewide limit on increases in property tax millage for school district operations was established through the 2006 Property Tax Relief law. |
| |
Since 1992, Greenville County Schools (GCS) has had a millage cap set by our local legislative delegation (the state legislators from Greenville County.) . This local limit (4 mills or less) is more restrictive than the new state limit and puts Greenville County Schools at a competitive disadvantage with other school districts in the state. The local millage-limit law (Act 602) should be repealed by our local legislators. |
| |
Comparison of local limit vs. state limit |
| |
|
| 4. |
Support Public School Choice |
| |
The Alliance supports more choices for parents within the public school system. Greenville County Schools already has extensive school choice with both magnet schools and open enrollment within the district. The bill introduced in the House (H.4391) will assist Greenville County Schools by providing state funds for transporting students to and from district choice programs. Currently our school system has to use its own funds for transporting magnet students. |
| |
Current Status: Legislation introduced in House |
| |
No action on bill. |
| |
|
| 5. |
Oppose School Vouchers |
| |
Oppose school vouchers and tuition tax credits which use state tax dollars to pay for student enrollment in a private school (This includes opposing vouchers for 4-year-old Kindergarten.) Instead, expanded public school options should be supported as stated above. |
| |
The following are some primary reasons for this position: |
| |
- |
Public school choice options are academically and financially accountable to taxpayers; Private schools funded through school vouchers and tuition tax credits are not. |
| |
- |
Independent charter schools, which are accountable to taxpayers, can be established in any school district in the state. |
| |
- |
Extensive research shows no academic gains from school vouchers and tuition tax credits and that public schools do as good or better job of educating students than private schools. |
| |
- |
Vouchers and tuition tax credits primarily benefit families with students already in private schools. |
| |
- |
Voucher programs do not provide publicly available information on schools nor provide parents the ability to do an “apples-to-apples” comparison of schools. |
| |
- |
Taxpayers will be forced to support failing private schools they don’t know are failing. (The experience in Milwaukee demonstrates that some parents pick poor schools for their children and keep them there.) |
| |
Lack Accountability; No Achievement Gain; Parent Accountability Alone Doesn't Work |
| |
|
| 6. |
Oppose Local Spending Caps |
| |
Legislation to establish a state spending cap is being proposed in the state legislature. The State Chamber of Commerce and others are promoting the addition of local spending caps to this bill. |
| |
The following are some of the reasons to oppose a local cap: |
| |
- |
Our local school board is held accountable for the performance of our schools and students. Taxpayers have the ability to elect new board members if they disagree with the way tax dollars are being spent. |
| |
- |
Local funding control is already severely limited: |
| |
|
• Under the 2006 Property Tax Relief law, a large portion of the school district’s property tax base—the only local source of revenue for school districts—was eliminated. |
| • Secondly, a cap already exists on school district millage increases and this cap now applies to the smaller property base that remains. |
| |
- |
Increases in federal restricted-use funding could force the district to reduce the amount it spends for ongoing operations. Similarly, a cap could limit the district’s pursuit of large grant opportunities. |
| |
|
|
