The Power of Words and the Ongoing Fight Against Common Core

We have known for some time that Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have left voters, legislators, parents, and teachers frustrated and confused. Now we are learn that the Standards have caused a controversy amongst another group: pollsters. In a recent clash of surveys, the Gallup poll shows 60% of Americans oppose Common Core while an Education Next survey shows support for the standards in the 53% to 68% range.

Why the big difference? Not surprisingly, it is the questions themselves.

Here was the Gallup question that showed 60% opposition: “Do you favor or oppose having the teachers in your community use the Common Core State Standards to guide what they teach?" And here was Education Next’s question that showed 53% support: [Q31a]. “As you may know, in the last few years states have been deciding whether or not to use the Common Core, which are standards for reading and math that are the same across the states. In the states that have these standards, they will be used to hold public schools accountable for their performance. Do you support or oppose the use of the Common Core standards in your state?" No wonder the results were so different and so controversial. In juxtaposition, the angle each pollster took is obvious. But downright humorous is how Education Next achieved a 68% support mark: they also asked a question Q31b., which left out the words Common Core and replaced them with “standards for reading and math.”

So, it appears the best way to build up Common Core is to produce a poll showing the public supports it, but in order to do that, the poll must not mention Common Core. This is particularly surprising given the elevation of Common Core to brand status in the last year. Imagine a poll for say, Ford or Coke that failed to mention Ford or Coke. (Perhaps a better comparison to the Common Core brand is the Edsel or New Coke.) As the conflicting polls indicate, wording matters. This appears to be particularly true of Common Core, no matter what the context.

Just three months ago, when Common Core legislation was before the General Assembly, Charleston Senators Larry Grooms and Chip Campsen offered a short amendment to the Common Core bill (H.3893). That amendment, hereafter known as Grooms-Campsen, said that:
"For the purpose of developing new college and career readiness English/language arts and mathematics state content standards, a cyclical review must be performed…. The review must begin on or before January 1, 2015, and the new college and career readiness state content standards must be implemented for the 2015-2016 school year." So what does Grooms-Campsen mean? That is the source of The Great “New” Conflict. It is a struggle over which of the two “new’s” in this paragraph is controlling.

Attorneys for the State Senate are dedicated to the first New. That would go something like this: any time new standards are developed by some group other than the State Board of Education (as were Common Core State Standards), a tweaking must take place periodically. It is time for that review in 2015, so let the tweaking of the current Common Core Standards begin around the first of the year.

Attorneys for State Superintendent of Education Dr. Mick Zais, who are dedicated to the second New, say Grooms-Campsen means something quite different: totally new state standards for Math and ELA must to be developed and that process must begin as soon as possible.

Hence the “New Conflict.”

The polling controversy and the New conflict are a perfect illustration for why Palmetto Policy Forum exists. When we first looked at the Standards issue nearly two years ago, we knew that the state was divided and misinformed. We also knew that South Carolina needed to get out of Common Core Standards and the federal testing that came with it. But this would need to be done without unneeded expense to taxpayers and a jarring effect on our children and teachers. That is why PPF rolled up our sleeves, recognized the teaching moment and looked for solutions. While some were simply pound the legislature, the Governor, the State Superintendent, we extended a hand and worked for a way out.

But the battle isn’t over.

There are those who would like to see warmed over CCSS as standards for 2015-2016, which is why we are committed to continuing to be actively involved in the revision process. In fact, Education Superintendent Dr. Mick Zais has appointed our own Palmetto Policy President Ellen Weaver to serve on an advisory panel for the new standards.

We are pleased South Carolinians will be developing the standards that will go into effect for the 2015-2016 school year. That was our goal all along, and the legislative win is a huge victory for federalism, local authority, and high standards. Our analysis framed the fight at the beginning, and our ongoing involvement will see us to the end of Common Core in South Carolina.


Dr. Oran P. Smith is Palmetto Policy Forum's Senior Fellow.

Why We Have To Get Healthcare Right: Part I

Healthcare could be the single most important lynchpin policy issue that America has to grapple with today. There are two indisputable facts everyone can agree on when it comes to healthcare: first, everyone needs medical care at some point, and second, the cost of medical treatment is astronomically high. A couple days of uninsured hospital care could easily saddle someone with a lifetime of debt. It is impossible to bury your head in the sand deep enough to deny that our healthcare system is broken and needs reform. What many don’t realize however, is just how important healthcare policy is, and how desperately needed reform is. Let’s take a tour of six different policy arenas that are deeply entwined with healthcare. Here are the first three...

Immigration Policy
One of the central issues driving the immigration debate is the cost of providing healthcare for uninsured illegals. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the current cost of treating uninsured immigrants who entered this country illegally at all levels of government to be $4.3 billion a year, primarily at emergency rooms and free clinics.[1] Furthermore, the healthcare benefits that come with citizenship are a major driver of immigration. As US citizenship policy is currently interpreted, any child born within the geographic borders of the United States is granted automatic birthright citizenship, and that includes the children of illegal aliens. Tens of thousands of illegal immigrant mothers have crossed into the US as they near childbirth in order to gain citizenship for their children, and it’s attending healthcare benefits. Though these children are citizens, their mothers, fathers, and siblings that often stay with them in America are not. Since illegal aliens account for 25% of the US population without medical insurance, and are responsible for 70% of the increase in uninsured patients, it’s safe to say that getting healthcare reform right will deeply impact our immigration policy.[2]

Fiscal Policy
The cost of modern medicine is no secret. With advanced medical technology has come equally advanced costs. For example, in 2012 the total healthcare spending in America hit $2.8 trillion, or $8,915 per person.[3] It is not hard to see why we are closing in on having a $20 trillion national debt when we are spending close to 3 trillion dollars every year on healthcare services. Overall, the national debt has increased by an astronomical 7 trillion dollars since president Obama took office, and this increase is largely tied to the immense amounts that have been spent to fund Obamacare.[4] This immense debt is driving our economy into the ground as we continue to struggle to recover from the fiscal crash of 2008, and overall job creation and economic growth limp along. Crunching the economic numbers alone ought to drive us to reform our healthcare system.

Poverty Assistance Policy
Just as with the other policy arenas we’ve talked about, poverty policy is permanently intertwined with healthcare policy. The primary driving concern of the policy controversy surrounding poverty assistance in America today is not so much people’s lack of access to food or housing, but their lack of access to adequate healthcare. The very goal of Obamacare is to expand insurance coverage to the very poor, but it is backfiring. The expanded coverage has dramatically increased non-urgent emergency room visits as low income patients on Medicaid come in to the emergency room seeking routine care such as treatment of lice or braces for minor sprains.[5] This trend to go to the emergency room regardless of the treatment needed actually undermines the quality of care that the poor receive as they would be better off going to specialists in most cases. If we get healthcare reform right, that will necessarily result in huge strides forward in poverty assistance policy.

To be continued...


Tim Caiello is a 2014 graduate of Columbia International University and Outreach Coordinator at Palmetto Policy Forum.






[1] http://www.moneynews.com/NealAsbury/Immigration-healthcare-illegal-emergency/2013/05/09/id/503579/

[2] http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-sinking-lifeboat-uncontrolled-immigration-and-the-u-s-health-care-system-in-2009

[3] http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf


[4] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/706025967449751-federal-debt-7t-under-Obama


[5] http://www.marketplace.org/topics/health-care/ers-are-still-busy-affordable-care-act-and-all

Government Run Insurance: One Veteran's Nightmare

Medicaid expansion: what’s all the fuss?  Isn’t it compassionate to have the government provide health care for those in need?  And besides – Washington is paying for it, so isn’t it “free money” for states like SC?  Unfortunately, reality says, “Not so fast!”

This week, we hear the experience of one American soldier with Tricare, a government run insurance program for the military.  He has learned the tough lesson that insurance coverage doesn’t equal care as he battles narrow network providers, incompetency, miscommunication, and a maddening maze of red tape, bureaucratic hoops and denied care.  If this is the way the federal government says “thank you for putting your life on the line for our country,” you can only imagine the quality of care those in Medicaid have come to expect…

“I am a full-time member of the active duty Army National Guard, and served several tours of duty in Iraq. My experience with federally administered healthcare has been a nightmare.

The first problem I ran into was finding a primary care provider. I have Tricare Prime Remote since I am a full-time active service member in a rural location. The first doctor Tricare referred me to ended up being an Urgent Care clinic, which doesn’t take patients, but sees people like an emergency room instead.  I called  Tricare back and they gave me a huge list of doctors to call, most of whom said they have never taken Tricare and have told Tricare many times to take them off the network provider list.  I then called Tricare again and was given yet another list to choose from.  After several calls I finally found a primary care provider and was able to set an initial appointment.

On my first visit to the doctor, I told him about the health issues and pain I have, all of which stem from things that have happened to me during my multiple deployments to Iraq. The doctor told me the issues I am having are serious and need immediate attention. He scheduled referral appointments for me with a neurologist and gave me two different prescriptions which he called into the local pharmacy.

When I went to the pharmacy to pick up my prescriptions, the pharmacist told me that Tricare had denied them both because they needed preauthorization from the prescribing doctor. I contacted both the doctor and Tricare and forms were sent to my doctor to sign and send back to Tricare. My doctor did this and there was no response from Tricare. I called them again and they claimed they had never received anything from the doctor. I contacted the doctor and they sent me the confirmation they had received when they originally submitted the forms back to Tricare, but they agreed they would send them again. Tricare then denied both of the prescriptions saying no generic versions of them were available. 

After all of that, I went to my appointment with the neurologist. This was about three weeks after the initial appointment with my primary doctor. When I went to check in and gave them my ID card, they told me they don’t accept Tricare.  After working with them and getting Tricare on the phone they agreed to see me. The neurologist talked with me and looked at the notes from my doctor and then set up the test that I needed as well as multiple MRI’s. The front desk set up dates for all of these appointments.   

My first appointment was about three weeks after my initial appointment with the neurologist. When I showed up to check in for my testing, the receptionists asked me why I was there. I told her I had testing being done today. She then said, “You mean Tricare never told you that we weren’t going to be able to do the test?” I told her no, I had not been contacted by anyone. At this point I called Tricare again to find out what was going on. They told me I had been referred to a different neurologist and that that had been done over two weeks ago. They told me if I didn’t want to wait I should go to the VA. I asked why I hadn’t been told and they said they would now send me a letter telling me and could also send me an email if I would like.               

Once I got the email with the referral information for the neurologist that Tricare had found me, I called them to try and set up an appointment to have the test done. That neurologist’s office told me I couldn’t set up an appointment, but that it had to be in writing from my primary care doctor. I then called them and requested them to contact the neurologist and set up the appointment for me.

So as it stands right now it has been around six weeks since my first visit to the primary care provider and I have not been able to get any medications, have any test done, or been able to obtain any follow up on treatment. I can’t even add up all the man hours I have waited on the phone and driving to appointments that I ended up not even being seen. All in all I find it appalling the way I have been treated as an American war veteran.  And I can promise you: government-run insurance is no silver bullet.”