H3196 and other bills impacting hiring and specific details of employment for teachers reflect common trends in modern legislation and exhibit the potential to lead to unintended consequences.
Related bills include H3192 “Special Education Teacher Salaries,” 3204 “Teacher and State Superintendent Credentials,” 3207 “Teacher Certification Renewals,” 3210 “Non-teaching Duties of Public School Educators,” S58 “Teacher Salary Requirements” (pay them the national average), S88 “Prior Work Experience for Teachers,” S79 "Non-certified Teacher Pilot Programs,” H3734 “Collective Bargaining.” These all move our state in the same direction.
While there is a bonafide teacher shortage, more money, job perks, and laws do not address the real causes of this problem.
COMMON TRENDS FOUND IN MANY STATE LAWS evident in H3196 and related legislation:
Impact an Identified Special Interest Group
Teachers receive a great many “benefits” from the government. H3196, like others, benefits teachers alone, including an option for “lifetime” certification and other perks perhaps exceeding the need for codified state law.
Powerful teacher organizations also benefit from laws that increase the employment perks of their members.
Increase State Control
These kinds of bills expand the depth to which government gets into the details of teacher hiring, employment, certification, and tiny details of the work environment that do not warrant codified law.
A simple visual look at H3196 shows that more law is being added than is removed. More law, by definition, increases state control.
The power of the State is extended as the new parts of these kinds of laws are backed by the police power of the State, ensuring compliance with each little detail.
H3196, like many other bills, requires data collection and storage.
Raise Government Costs
More detailed regulations and procedures require more administrative time, which means money, and/or personnel to meet requirements.
Public school costs, which are massively impacted by salary costs, will be reflected in higher tax rates. While the fiscal impact of some bills may be “undetermined,” incremental growth is cumulative and cannot be sustained indefinitely, despite the government’s ability to tax.
Possible Unintended Consequences
H3196 increases the size of the body of state-level statutory law. In the past, many of these kinds of policy and practice details were developed locally or based on recommendations for “best practices” published and endorsed by educational leaders and organizations to support teachers and the public education system.
At some point (perhaps once “school choice” is firmly in place and “schools” are receiving state funding) teacher certification requirements could be applied to all schools—even including home schools. This has been the case in earlier laws in many states and was a major point of contention in the early days of the homeschooling movement, changed only after hard work in many states.
As technology expands its presence in the schools, “progress” tends to let it take over more and more of the educational tasks, including research, practice, presentation of information, etc. As we pay teachers more, one might wonder if at some point they will become more like overseers and babysitters than active participants in the learning of children. Taxpayers could be left with an exorbitant bill to pay for “teachers” and, in addition, high costs for the technology that is actually doing a large part of their jobs.
Teachers form a large voting bloc that receives financial, government, and societal care and special nurturing. Codifying benefits encourages teachers to keep their supporting legislators in office. The primary goal of any representative in Columbia is apparently re-election. For this and other reasons, many legislators cater to teachers. Despite the deplorable performance of today’s educational facilities, legislators then appeal to their constituents, who continue to think the system can be improved by more money and more perks for the people in it and will support their representatives when they enable this.
As more and more details are defined at the state level, there is diminishing local control and district-level discretion regarding customized hiring practices and specifics of employment processes to be followed. This could mean districts lose the ability to follow more customized or efficient practices that better meet their needs.
Laws like these often follow national or federal trends and/or law. S58 blatantly ties itself to national guidance instead of resisting or tailoring itself to the South Carolina parameters.
CONCLUSION:
One solution should be simple and obvious, even if daunting. Stop letting the state government get deeper and deeper into every facet of our lives. We, the People, must push back against the increasing police power of the state. If people don’t fight back effectively, local towns, counties, and districts won’t matter or have any choices, and individual autonomy will be eliminated. Perhaps someday South Carolina will go so far as to resist Federal money, control, and compliance, but that doesn’t seem likely at this time. Nonetheless, things we accept will not improve. It is time to start paying attention.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not constitute legal or professional advice. ConservaTruth assumes no liability for any actions taken based on this content. Read more.
Subscribe to ConservaTruth's Email Newsletter for curated insights on South Carolina's legislative activities and conservative viewpoints, delivered straight to your inbox! With vetted and easy-to-understand information, our newsletter empowers you to become an informed and engaged citizen, actively participating in safeguarding our cherished Constitutional values. Don’t miss out on crucial updates—join our community of informed conservatives today.
Comments