Question #7
What are your views on the current funding methods used by the General Assembly to fund public education? What are your views on Act 388?
Doyle Costello District #1
Currently, I believe that the GA is trying to help with teacher retention and raises. I believe in the system of checks and balances with the GA and our schools. I disagree with Act 388. Frankly, I can not understand how anyone thought this act was fair and unbiased.
Keith S. Gryboski District #1
I think all lottery money should be spent on primary education, K-12. We need to focus all our efforts in making sure that all students graduate from high school with the ability to read with a mastery of basic skills. We must demonstrate that what money we are allocated, is being spent on methods that are working. If we have methods that work and are not funded, the Charleston Delegation must do their job in obtaining the funds.
Act 388 is a public issue that is decided by all of South Carolina’s citizens. It is through the power of voting. I have lived in states with the money allocated to education came mostly through property taxes. The education in those states, still had the same problems we face in South Carolina. Changing Act 388 would be very difficult, especially with the lack of trust that we are fiscally responsible for the money we have been entrusted with.
Elizabeth Moffly District #2
I was in favor of Act 388 as the district every year raised taxes because of their failure to live within the budget. I served on this board from 2010-2014 and every year we faced $18mil, $26mil short falls. The CFO never implemented auditors safe guards for over spending like retired or fired employees remained on payrolls and so did the benefits. The problem with the General Assembly is the 388 money is going into the general fund and isn't being designated for education.
Sarah Shad Johnson District #2
Act 388 is outdated and needs to be revised. The act did not achieve what was promised when first enacted. It will be a very hard lift to tackle Act 388 in this state, but the school board can continue to advocate for change with resolutions and through its legislative program. The school district also has two lobbyists that should be working on this as well.
Seana J. Flynn District #2
While I do not agree with Act 388, I do understand its incarnation. We have not proven, across the state, to act in a fiscally responsible way.
Grace Bouldin Cowan District #2
Did not respond
Ed Kelly District #2
Did not respond
EJ Milligan District #2
Did not respond
Chris Collins District #3
That is the Act that dictates our percent sales tax. Not sure on opinion
Pam Mckinney District #3
Did not respond
Thomas Ravenell District #3
Did not respond
Ashley Peele District #3
I'm in favor of simplicity and a funding methodology informed by educators. South Carolina education is underfunded and the impact that has on teacher and principal recruitment and retention as well as student outcomes is clear. The legislature should do more, but local funding is also critical. Property taxes are an important funding source. A rising tide lifts all ships. As the neighborhoods improve, the schools in those neighborhoods should also improve and this is partly enabled by property taxes. Every resident benefits when students excel, so every resident should have interest in supporting South Carolina education.
Courtney Waters District #4
I think this state needs to do more than talk about supporting teachers. We must listen to what people say and watch how they move. Our General Assembly made a promise in the last session to raise teacher pay, then didn't fund it. That says to me that they are more interested in espousing their opinions than actually fixing problems. Act 388 is another example of this. We always hear how much the state cares about the education system, yet it prioritizes business interests over education. The act distributes money away from the education system to lure businesses to the state and those businesses don't do enough to support our schools.
Kevin D Hollinshead District #4
Act 388 needs to be revised.
Vivian S Pettigrew District #5
The new funding seems to give more funds to districts with higher number of students which may cause problems for districts with smaller student population's.
Act 388 funding allocated for schools should be distributed equally to all school districts and each school should receive the same amount. This is the reason many parents choose schools not in their attendance area.
Melissa Couture District #5
I like the new model they are using this year to let districts decide how best to use the funds in their unique areas. I prefer a sales tax over a property tax.
Carlotte M. Bailey District #5
Did not respond
Erica Cokley District #6
Did not respond
Eric Thome District #6
Did not respond
Samuel Whatley II District #6
Did not respond
Lee Runyon District #6
I believe that if we as a district work with the General Assembly and our local delegation, funding will continue to increase annually. Education funding is a top priority for the Legislature every year. We must continue to push for the per pupil funding provided by the state to annually exceed the identified rate of inflation. As for Act 388, its repeal would mean an increase in funding for CCSD, but the reality is there are not sufficient votes to do so given the winners vs. losers of funds as a result of it in SC.
While I would support its repeal, I do not foresee that becoming a reality.
Sydney van Bulck Disrict #7
Act 388 cut school funding that was already being underfunded. We have to work with our legislatures to fix this mistake to ensure that schools in Charleston and across the state are adequately funded.
Jennifer Mieras District #7
The General Assembly needs to fully fund the education budget. The base student cost needs to be fully funded to the metrics the State sets. Act 388 was passed in 2006 as a temporary measure. It is confusing and needs to be readdressed and reformed.
Joy Brown District #7
The General Assembly and Act 388 assure our public schools are not fully funded. It is inequitably applied across the state. Public education should always be a priority for funding and it its not. Too many tax abatements and similar issues keep education in South Carolina among the lowest in the country.
Leah Whatley District #7
Did not respond
Travis Bedson District #8
Did not respond
Helen Davis-Frazier District #8
Act 388 is suppose to provide relief to homeowners by imposing a 1% state-wide sales tax on other consumer goods. It also limits the amount of taxes a district can impose on homeowners. For years, we have witnessed debates among legislators regarding the lack of funding for education. I am not in favor of raising taxes on owner- occupied residences to fund education, but many of the businesses who re-locate to our State are given tremendous tax breaks and are not contributing their fair share of taxes. I also think there should be other avenues imposed to fund education equitably throughout the State to address the "corridor of shame" .
Doris Johnson District #8
We do have a South Carolina Education Lottery fund. How is this money allocated. I perceive that the General Assembly considered the school districts. The question is why is it necessary for homeowners taxes to be increase.
In my limited knowledge of Act 388 it appears that it is designed to protect property owners from increased taxes in which I agree. I perceive that homeowners should be protected from increased taxes.
Darlene Dunmeyer District #8
Most residents in the rural areas of Charleston County (District 8) own their homes, which do not appreciate at the same rate of homes in the non-rural parts of the county. Act 388 does not provide an equal opportunity for all tax-payers and does not assist the school in funding. We must educate tax-paying parents about the impact of such policies so that they can make an informed decision when selecting representatives to make decisions in the General Assembly.
Dr. Carol Tempel District #9
The current funding methods used by the General Assembly do not see to reflect the needs of schools as evident by there not fully funding of the Base Student Cost formula. Act 388 decimated schools and the decline in student performance and teacher retention since its passage is evident in our educational outcomes. I really would like to see the General Assembly fund schools for a longer cycle (e.g. three years) so schools could stabilize their programs. Year to year funding with budgets passed in late June/early July are not conducive to good planning.
Forest Bjork District #9
Did not respond
Graham Smith District #9
Did not respond
What are your views on the current funding methods used by the General Assembly to fund public education? What are your views on Act 388?
Doyle Costello District #1
Currently, I believe that the GA is trying to help with teacher retention and raises. I believe in the system of checks and balances with the GA and our schools. I disagree with Act 388. Frankly, I can not understand how anyone thought this act was fair and unbiased.
Keith S. Gryboski District #1
I think all lottery money should be spent on primary education, K-12. We need to focus all our efforts in making sure that all students graduate from high school with the ability to read with a mastery of basic skills. We must demonstrate that what money we are allocated, is being spent on methods that are working. If we have methods that work and are not funded, the Charleston Delegation must do their job in obtaining the funds.
Act 388 is a public issue that is decided by all of South Carolina’s citizens. It is through the power of voting. I have lived in states with the money allocated to education came mostly through property taxes. The education in those states, still had the same problems we face in South Carolina. Changing Act 388 would be very difficult, especially with the lack of trust that we are fiscally responsible for the money we have been entrusted with.
Elizabeth Moffly District #2
I was in favor of Act 388 as the district every year raised taxes because of their failure to live within the budget. I served on this board from 2010-2014 and every year we faced $18mil, $26mil short falls. The CFO never implemented auditors safe guards for over spending like retired or fired employees remained on payrolls and so did the benefits. The problem with the General Assembly is the 388 money is going into the general fund and isn't being designated for education.
Sarah Shad Johnson District #2
Act 388 is outdated and needs to be revised. The act did not achieve what was promised when first enacted. It will be a very hard lift to tackle Act 388 in this state, but the school board can continue to advocate for change with resolutions and through its legislative program. The school district also has two lobbyists that should be working on this as well.
Seana J. Flynn District #2
While I do not agree with Act 388, I do understand its incarnation. We have not proven, across the state, to act in a fiscally responsible way.
Grace Bouldin Cowan District #2
Did not respond
Ed Kelly District #2
Did not respond
EJ Milligan District #2
Did not respond
Chris Collins District #3
That is the Act that dictates our percent sales tax. Not sure on opinion
Pam Mckinney District #3
Did not respond
Thomas Ravenell District #3
Did not respond
Ashley Peele District #3
I'm in favor of simplicity and a funding methodology informed by educators. South Carolina education is underfunded and the impact that has on teacher and principal recruitment and retention as well as student outcomes is clear. The legislature should do more, but local funding is also critical. Property taxes are an important funding source. A rising tide lifts all ships. As the neighborhoods improve, the schools in those neighborhoods should also improve and this is partly enabled by property taxes. Every resident benefits when students excel, so every resident should have interest in supporting South Carolina education.
Courtney Waters District #4
I think this state needs to do more than talk about supporting teachers. We must listen to what people say and watch how they move. Our General Assembly made a promise in the last session to raise teacher pay, then didn't fund it. That says to me that they are more interested in espousing their opinions than actually fixing problems. Act 388 is another example of this. We always hear how much the state cares about the education system, yet it prioritizes business interests over education. The act distributes money away from the education system to lure businesses to the state and those businesses don't do enough to support our schools.
Kevin D Hollinshead District #4
Act 388 needs to be revised.
Vivian S Pettigrew District #5
The new funding seems to give more funds to districts with higher number of students which may cause problems for districts with smaller student population's.
Act 388 funding allocated for schools should be distributed equally to all school districts and each school should receive the same amount. This is the reason many parents choose schools not in their attendance area.
Melissa Couture District #5
I like the new model they are using this year to let districts decide how best to use the funds in their unique areas. I prefer a sales tax over a property tax.
Carlotte M. Bailey District #5
Did not respond
Erica Cokley District #6
Did not respond
Eric Thome District #6
Did not respond
Samuel Whatley II District #6
Did not respond
Lee Runyon District #6
I believe that if we as a district work with the General Assembly and our local delegation, funding will continue to increase annually. Education funding is a top priority for the Legislature every year. We must continue to push for the per pupil funding provided by the state to annually exceed the identified rate of inflation. As for Act 388, its repeal would mean an increase in funding for CCSD, but the reality is there are not sufficient votes to do so given the winners vs. losers of funds as a result of it in SC.
While I would support its repeal, I do not foresee that becoming a reality.
Sydney van Bulck Disrict #7
Act 388 cut school funding that was already being underfunded. We have to work with our legislatures to fix this mistake to ensure that schools in Charleston and across the state are adequately funded.
Jennifer Mieras District #7
The General Assembly needs to fully fund the education budget. The base student cost needs to be fully funded to the metrics the State sets. Act 388 was passed in 2006 as a temporary measure. It is confusing and needs to be readdressed and reformed.
Joy Brown District #7
The General Assembly and Act 388 assure our public schools are not fully funded. It is inequitably applied across the state. Public education should always be a priority for funding and it its not. Too many tax abatements and similar issues keep education in South Carolina among the lowest in the country.
Leah Whatley District #7
Did not respond
Travis Bedson District #8
Did not respond
Helen Davis-Frazier District #8
Act 388 is suppose to provide relief to homeowners by imposing a 1% state-wide sales tax on other consumer goods. It also limits the amount of taxes a district can impose on homeowners. For years, we have witnessed debates among legislators regarding the lack of funding for education. I am not in favor of raising taxes on owner- occupied residences to fund education, but many of the businesses who re-locate to our State are given tremendous tax breaks and are not contributing their fair share of taxes. I also think there should be other avenues imposed to fund education equitably throughout the State to address the "corridor of shame" .
Doris Johnson District #8
We do have a South Carolina Education Lottery fund. How is this money allocated. I perceive that the General Assembly considered the school districts. The question is why is it necessary for homeowners taxes to be increase.
In my limited knowledge of Act 388 it appears that it is designed to protect property owners from increased taxes in which I agree. I perceive that homeowners should be protected from increased taxes.
Darlene Dunmeyer District #8
Most residents in the rural areas of Charleston County (District 8) own their homes, which do not appreciate at the same rate of homes in the non-rural parts of the county. Act 388 does not provide an equal opportunity for all tax-payers and does not assist the school in funding. We must educate tax-paying parents about the impact of such policies so that they can make an informed decision when selecting representatives to make decisions in the General Assembly.
Dr. Carol Tempel District #9
The current funding methods used by the General Assembly do not see to reflect the needs of schools as evident by there not fully funding of the Base Student Cost formula. Act 388 decimated schools and the decline in student performance and teacher retention since its passage is evident in our educational outcomes. I really would like to see the General Assembly fund schools for a longer cycle (e.g. three years) so schools could stabilize their programs. Year to year funding with budgets passed in late June/early July are not conducive to good planning.
Forest Bjork District #9
Did not respond
Graham Smith District #9
Did not respond