Tiger GPS: Government and Public Service Blog

PRO-CHOICE IS NOT THE SAME AS PRO-ABORTION by Ron Turner

Abortion rights in the United States are under attack. Access to the medical procedure has been declining in recent years. With the retirement of Justice Kennedy last summer, women’s health advocates worry about the possibility of a nationwide abortion ban in the coming years.

However, there was a time in the United States when abortion policy was less contentious. Deciding to have an abortion was neither controversial nor immoral. Services advertised openly. The judicial system used the “quickening doctrine,” and public policy governing abortion was apolitical. Policy centered on safety, protecting women from untrained abortionists, nothing more. By the mid-nineteenth century, however, changes began to occur.

Led by Dr. Horatio Storer, in 1856, a national campaign against abortion took root. Using his influence in the American Medical Association, Dr. Horatio Storer argued in favor of life beginning at “conception.” Within a few years’ time, the AMA had fully adopted the position, and by 1900, laws forbidding abortion and abortion literature had been adopted nationwide. Abortion, once wide-spread and legal, was now a felony.

The tightening of abortion policy did not happen overnight; policy developed incrementally. Laws grew from regulating to restricting to outlawing the procedure. Penalties evolved from “unenforced” misdemeanors to charging abortionist with felonies. The changes in policy that occurred were not random; they were a series of incremental approximations, all leading to an end.

Abortion policy in the United States remained unchecked until the early 1960’s. In 1965, theSupreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), that birth control was a women’s “privacy.” From that point, abortion policy began to swing in the opposite direction. Hawaii decriminalized abortion, followed by New York, Washington, and other states. Then, in 1973, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), became the law of the land.

Recently, many restrictive measures have been put in place to limit a woman’s access to abortion. Missouri, Mississippi, West Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming only have one licensed abortion clinic each. In other states, women must endure mandatory waiting periods, counseling, and ultrasounds. Additionally, “Trap Laws” are being used as a means to combat access to the procedure.

What is happening in the United States is not unique. Abortion laws in Ireland have long stigmatized and denied abortion access to women. However, on May 25, 2018, the country was able to navigate the obstacles of its past and chose to safeguard women and their choices. Voters in Ireland have shown us that a pro-choice position is not pro-abortion; it is something entirely different. A pro-choice position suggests women should have the right to make decisions about what happens to their bodies. Let’s hope the United States was paying attention.

AMENDING THE AMERICAN MINDSET by Dewitt Ford

Without a doubt, my favorite (and most dramatic) piece of legislation is Colorado Amendment 64 of 2012, commonly known as the recreational marijuana bill. This amendment to Colorado’s state constitution has been the catalyst to countless conversations, debates, and arguments. The potential consequences of placing what was once considered a highly addictive gateway drug in the hands of the public is nothing to be taken lightly.

Proponents of Amendment 64 stated that the purpose of this bill was threefold: to maximize the efficiency and allocation of law enforcement resources, to produce revenue for public purposes, and to enhance the freedoms of the people of Colorado. Understandably, there were many who opposed this bill and these adversaries made compelling cases for its removal from the ballot. The case against marijuana was very strong, and while some of the fears were rooted in justified concerns, the proposed bill alleviated many of the concerns directly. In its essence, Amendment 64 viewed marijuana as no different than alcohol and believed the two substances should be regulated the same. Identification and age verification would be required prior to purchasing marijuana, just like alcohol.

However, regardless of initial fears and apprehension, there are studies that show that the legalization of marijuana has led to a decrease in adolescent marijuana use in both Colorado and Washington (see, for example, American Journal of Nursing, issue 10 in 2017). According to the Colorado Department of Education (CDE), approximately $90.3 million in revenue for CDE was generated by marijuana sales in FY 2017-2018. These funds went toward funding school construction, dropout prevention programs, anti-bullying programs, and hiring of resident health professionals.

The fears of handicapping law enforcement and subsequently causing danger to society with an influx of “high” drivers was also addressed in the bill. Very clearly, at the end of the legislation, there is a passage that states that nothing in the bill prevents law enforcement from arresting marijuana impaired drivers. Additionally, new devices are being developed that can measure THC on a subject’s breath and can determine if the subject has smoked or ingested marijuana in the last few hours.

Amendment 64 took a huge leap in combatting not only a failing war on drugs, but the failing war on freedom. Too many civilians have been incarcerated over possessing small amounts of marijuana and it’s time we as a people admit one simple truth: marijuana isn’t this ominous, dangerous drug. In my personal and professional opinion as a patrol officer for the Clemson University Police Department, it causes much less damage than alcohol abuse, but hey… what do I know?

MISMANAGED AND MINIMALLY INADEQUATE: PUBLIC EDUCATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA by William Everroad

Public administrators in the State Board of Education and district school boards face an uphill battle. Funding usually comes from federal, state, and local sources. Federal funding in South Carolina averages about 11% with state (46%) and local (44%) funding splitting the rest, according to the appropriations bill ratified by the SC General Assembly in June 2018 (hereinafter, H4950). The consumers, students, and parents rarely have an inside look at how funds are allocated and spent until funds are grossly misused at the school level. Additionally, education funding, which is only 19% of the state’s 2018 budget (H4950), is one of the single largest line item expenses next to the Department of Health and Human Services at 31%. However, education spending is in the same discussion as funding for the Department of Transportation at 10% and the next highest line item, the Department of Corrections at 2%. If the state is already funding education more than most other items in the budget, the issue must be with efficient use of funds.

School level financial transparency is believed to lead to more accountability in this area, as covered by The Atlantic in January 2015. The idea is to promote openness in the management of funds through reporting how, why, and where funds are allocated with indicators of performance to establish returns. Many states are mandating school level transparency and ensuring compliance via online portals where the information is uploaded for public consumption.

The way funding is typically allocated is on a cost per student basis. In theory, a school would get more funding allocated if it has more students. In South Carolina, the cost per student is currently set at $2,425 with a proposed increase to $2,510. However, according to a recent study conducted by Clemson University’s own Holley Ulbrich and Ellen Salesman in 2017, the projected base cost per student is $2,984. That leaves $474 per student to be funded by other sources. In the same study, the researchers recommended updating the formula that the state uses to calculate base cost. Even if consumers know this information, it still does not highlight where the problem is and why exactly there seems to be “poor” schools and “rich” schools. One of the problems was settled in Abbeville County School District v. The State of South Carolina in 2014 (hereinafter ACSD V SC). It was decided in that case that the method of allocating funds without regard to district wealth caused some schools to be even more underfunded because wealthy districts with the same number of students would receive more funding from local taxes than schools in lower economic districts. It became so pervasive that the underfunded schools could not even provide the state constitution’s definition of “minimally adequate education.”

What are the standards of learning that are being used to measure a “good return” and what is a “minimally adequate education”? In ACSD V SC, the court defined it as “the provision of adequate and safe facilities in which students have the opportunity to acquire: The ability to read, write, and speak the English language, and knowledge of mathematics and physical science; A fundamental knowledge of economic, social, and political systems, and of history and governmental processes; and Academic and vocational skills.” One real measure of reading ability is the literacy rate among 4th graders. Studies show that if students do not have adequate reading skills by the 4th grade, they will continue falling behind as they are not able to keep pace with classroom instruction. Learning to read and then reading to learn, yet in 2016, two thirds of all 4th graders in South Carolina were unable read at grade level, which was 39th place in the nation in literacy, according to the executive director of Reading Partners, a Charleston-based ngo. The South Carolina Read to Succeed Act was implemented in 2014 to address the falling literacy rate in the state. However, it was seen as a mismanaged band aid that cost $214 million and in 2017 the National Assessment of Educational Progress revealed 4th graders in South Carolina ranking 47th in the nation in reading. The bulk of the funds was used to hire reading coaches who trained teachers how to teach reading from the 3rd to 4th grades. The unsuccessful program may have highlighted a key problem that was not addressed by the Read to Succeed Act. By targeting the outcome and trying to improve literacy, legislators ignored the inputs.

The teachers are a funded input, and the investment was not paying off. This could be that, from inception, inputs were not considered with a mind to investment efficiency. Legislators believed that, at $2,425 per student, they were paying for inputs that would end with students acquiring a “minimally adequate education” and when that didn’t happen, they looked toward fixing the output instead of the inputs. In fact, when Gov. Nikki Haley signed the Read to Succeed Act, she said, “If a child cannot read by third grade, they are four times less likely to graduate on time. That changes now because we are now going to say that no child will move forward past the third grade if they can’t read.” All the while, the public sentiment was that South Carolina was doing a bad job in educating students. However, South Carolina teachers are among the worst paid in the nation and maybe some of the worst teachers. One part of transparency reform would be to conduct a skills gap analysis to identify disparities in staff expertise when it comes to teaching, as suggested in the SAF School Management Blog. It could be argued that in South Carolina, a skills gap analysis is not necessary since it is known that in the worst performing districts; almost 30% of teachers failed to achieve full certification in accordance with the State Constitution (ACSD V SC).

“LEARNED THE HARD WAY” by Mark Mellott

Congratulations to my colleague and friend, Dr. Marc Bonica (@mbonica), for a great presentation of “Learned the Hard Way: A Model of Executive Leadership Competencies” at the American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE) National Congress, held in Chicago in March 2019. Marc was able to present at the conference and the paper is forthcoming.  Link to the presentation and citation for the paper appear below.

Dr. Bonica is an Assistant Professor at the University of New Hampshire. We previously served on faculty at Baylor University together. As a fellow ‘master practitioner,’ I love the opportunity to keep one foot in academia and be associated with the Clemson MPA. Go Tigers!

Bonica, M., Mayhugh, C., and Mellott, M., (Forthcoming). Learned the Hard Way: A Model of Executive Leadership Competencies.The Health Care Managerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1EUDRPV4R8&feature=youtu.be