Thursday, May 10, 2007

McMaster to D20: Now, What Was the Question?

For the benefit of those who have not heard about or read the S.C. Attorney General's response to the District 20 constituent school board regarding the appointment of the principal of Sanders-Clyde as part-time principal at Fraser, the letter (thanks to Channel 2's website) is quoted here:

"If the appointment of Ms. Moore at Frasier [sic] constitutes an appointment of a new principal, the district's enabling legislation requires she be one of three qualified persons recommended by the constituent district's board of trustees and be chosen by the Board of Trustees."

Wasn't that the question? Either McMaster needs a dunce cap, or the opinion deliberately evades an answer so that CCSD and Goodloe-Johnson may interpret it as they wish.

And they have already begun.

43 comments:

Anonymous said...

And the word is already out that the county board intends to further evade the question of constituent board duties when it sidesteps the three Dist. 20 recommended candidates to fill a vacancy on that board. Instead Nancy Cook has lined up the votes on the county board to choose a totally different person to fill the vacancy, one more to her liking. It to hell with the law, it would appear from Nancy Cook's point of view, if it rids the county board of these meddling people in Dist. 20.

Anonymous said...

It is apparent the CCSD want this shared principal regardless of the law states. Regardless of what the parents and the community want. Who do CCSD represent? It is clear not the people of D20. Where is Wilmot J. Fraser plan for excellence? CCSD makes the plan up day by day. Who will take the blame for it's failure. Surely, not the parents. How can parents believe in a plan that does not exist.There is no shared vision for Fraser how do CCSD expect Fraser to succeed?

Anonymous said...

CCSD officials will continue to break the law until someone holds them accountable. How else have they gotten away with so many violations for so long?
1) Segregated schools
2) A 30% tax increase in 2005
3) Cutting programs in poor schools
4) Real estate deals among friends
5) Out sourced contracts among friends
6) etc., etc., etc.

What Attorney General McMaster needs to do is call in an investigation of the whole freaking CCSD. If I were McGinley, I wouldn't take this thing on unless a complete investigation was begun at the same time.

Anonymous said...

Since Fraser and Sanders-Clyde have two separate BEDS reports, then there's no way Goodhoe can claim they are one school with one principal. She can mince words all she wants about this (see NBC news report) but Ms. Moore is still principal of Sanders-Clyde, not Fraser, until she follows the law on filling the vacancy at Fraser. This superintendent is a real piece of work and we are fools to allow this to continue.

Anonymous said...

It sounds like its time to swamp the county board members with e-mails from Fraser parents and District 20 supporters. If the West Ashley parents can stop a crazy rescheduling of opening times for elementary school kids in their area simply by inundating the county board with e-mails, then maybe that's the strategy we need to use downtown. How else would an administrative decision be stopped in its tracks without even scheduling a meeting. And the fact that many of those parents are politically active whites might also have something to do with school board members reversing themselves. CCSD has long ago decided that District 20 should be led around like cattle with rings in their noses. It's past time to set new standards of respect for our downtown schools and kids.

memminger1945 said...

CCSD has voluntarily accepted an awkward period of interregnum where no one seems to really be in charge that is loyal to anyone except themselves. There are a lot of worried self-interested people at 75 Calhoun St right now only concerned about the safety of their own jobs. If in her last 30 days G-J holds any animosity toward any segment of our community (like D20?), then the CCSD board has given her the opportunity to wreck havoc during her final weeks here. Maybe that’s exactly what the board’s leadership wants. It is unwise to allow someone with no vested interest in the outcome of their decisions (except maybe pure malice) to continue to lead our schools. Give G-J a paid vacation and let the new leadership take over. It can be held accountable but G-J can't be. G-J is no longer loyal to CCSD or it schools.

Anonymous said...

Keep up with the only outlet for what’s really going on in our downtown schools.
Pass it on: http://couriercritic.blogspot.com/

Express your concerns. Write and/or e-mail your representatives often. No issue is too small if fixing it could improve our schools. These are the people who can change things if you let them know what the issues really are.

CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF TRUSTEES:

Nancy Cook, Chair
581 Ryans Bluff Road.
N. Charleston. SC 29418
Email: ncookchas@aol.com
Phone: 760-2635
Term expires: 11/2008
Last Elected: 11/2000

Hillery Douglas, V.Chair
590 Ryans Bluff Road.
N. Charleston. SC 29418
Email: hpdoug@aol.com
Phone: 767-0740
Term expires: 11/2008
Last Elected: 11/2004

David Engelman
915 Julia Street
Charleston. SC 29412
Email: davidaengelman@aol.com
Term expires: 11/2008
Last Elected: 11/2004

Toya Hampton Green
602 Rutledge Avenue
Charleston. SC 29403
Email: toya@hamptongreenllc.com
Phone: 266-2626
Term expires: 11/2010 (wrong: 11/08, unexpired term remainder)
Last Elected: 11/2006

Ruth Jordan
1784 Banbury Road
Charleston. SC 29414
Email: rjordan@prucar.com
Phone: Home 345-4529 Work 571-7400
Term expires: 11/2010
Last Elected: 11/2006

Gregg Meyers
38 Broad Street, Suite 300 Charleston. SC 29401
Phone: 720-8714
Email: attygm@aol.com
Term expires: 11/2010
Last Elected: 11/2006

Brian Moody
200 Meeting Street
Charleston. SC 29401
Email: Bmoody@ggmcpa.com
Phone: 937-9710
Term expires: 11/2008
Last Elected: 11/2004

Arthur Ravenel, Jr.
109 Center Street
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Phone: 843-884-0291
Term expires: 11/2010
Last Elected: 11/2006

Ray Toler
4914 Foxwood Drive
N. Charleston.SC 29418
Email: raytoler@att.net
Term expires: 11/2010
Last Elected: 11/2002 (wrong: 11/2006)

* information was taken from CCSD's public data (including errors as shown)

Anonymous said...

Why hasn't McGinley's contract been made public? The only thing the P&C has said is that it is for a term of four years. There has been no talk of money. The rumor is that McGinley is holding out for more money. Go girl.

Anonymous said...

This is off the subject, but I was curious as to whether anyone else has received their postcard with the "reminder/correction" for the Peninsula Schools Community Meeting-
It's Tuesday, May 22 at 6:00pm. Evidently the letter sent out had Wednesday on it.
Imagine what this mistake cost the taxpayers.

Anonymous said...

Or was it just a convenient error designed to confuse everyone? I think CCSD is afraid there will be a large turnout at this thing and they really can't afford that. Extra postage and glossy stationery is just OPM (other people's money). Honestly, a large turnout is important.

Anonymous said...

What's this in the paper today about Nancy Cook? Did Ms. Courrege leave out the most serious part? I understand that the Lawrence Derthick Memorial Trust Fund was for District 20 children. I'm sure that Ms. Cook's employer is a worthy institution but this is a terrible conflict of interest.

memminger1945 said...

Oh, but it gets better 9:32pm. After CCSD's Derthick Fund committee met giving Nancy Cook the largest award, Gregg Meyers lobbied Hillery Douglas and Toya Green to add another D20 related charity to make it look good. Green and Douglas reconvened the committee last Friday (several days after the originally scheduled meeting described in Diette Courrege's article published yesterday...Saturday). This second meeting was without public notice. They voted to add the new charity, cut the other charities to a $5,000 maximum so as to make Cook's group look like 'just another worthy applicant' and then adjourned saying everything had been made right...only one problem. Green gets 2nd thoughts about word leaking out about their holding an unpublicized meeting of the committee which is illegal. So she contacts everyone afterwards to say "the 2nd meeting didn't really take place" and to fix everything she will just casually bring up the pre-agreed changes this Monday (tomorrow) at the regular meeting of the county school board as if "these were all new ideas that suddenly came" to little ole Toya. So there. Now everything's been fixed. Nancy Cook's group still gets most of its money and that bad old D20 crowd can just go cool their heels.

Major Problem Toya: This is exactly why you and the other members of the CCSD board are not trusted by the people you say you represent. You can't even handle the little things without screwing up and turning it into yet another mess. You are dishonest about your intentions and when you are caught with your hand in the power bar cookie jar you deny it. Accept responsibility for your mistakes Toya Hampton Green. You have knowingly chosen to become part of the problem with public schools in Charleston instead of part of the solution.

Anonymous said...

Rumor on the street is that Jerry Adams' job is on the ropes. It will be interesting to watch how Maria Goodhoe, Nancy Cook and the power holders on the county board handle public responses to their growing legal problems, from the AG's office on superceding their authority to appoint principals to FOIA requests about Buist and OCR complaints about just about everything else. As the power shift begins at 75 Calhoun, Jerry Adams appears to be one of the first casualties. It may be even more interesting to see what all this reveals about Nancy McGinley's leadership style.

Anonymous said...

To the 8:48 am poster:
If what you say is true, this is truly depressing. Can you forward this information to the Post and Courier? No offense, Babbie. As much as I enjoy your blog, we need this info. in ink.

Anonymous said...

Toya! I can't even express how disappointed I am in you. You actually seem hostile to the children of downtown Charleston with these sorts of shameless shenanigans. We would have been better off keeping Lurline Fishburne in office. Is it all about your husband's quest to take Ford's seat? You are responsible for thousands of downtown children. Don't you feel just a little guilty when you think about the role you are playing?

Anonymous said...

Here's a mailing list that anyone can use. It's just like the contact list for our elected school board representatives (see above). If individuals don't contact them, how can we expect them to know what concerns us most? Same thing is true with the Press. Cut and paste any e-mail address you want and use it. E-mail the reporters who are supposed to cover the news and the issues that are important to the community. Of course, you can't be "anonymous" but you can pass along what you are reading (if not actually writing). It's up to the Press to be responsible enough to do their own investigations AND to report the truth. But as has been said for thousands of years, "Where there's smoke, very often there's also a fire."

Here's a press list anyone can use:

Post & Courier: dcourrege@postandcourier.com

Charleston City Paper: editor@charlestoncitypaper.com
greg@charlestoncitypaper.com

Charleston Chronicle:
chaschron@aol.com

Chanel Five (CBS):
snottingham@live5news.com
wcscdesk@live5news.com

Chanel Four (ABC):
desk@wciv.com
nsalvucci@abcnews4.com

Chanel Two (NBC):
news@wcbd.com
srogers@wcbd.com,

Chas. Business Journal:
bbouyea@charlestonbusiness.com

Various Local Radio Stations: vidalatinanews@gmail.com
suavesitas10090@aol.com
judy.herold@citcomm.com
fred.storey@citcomm.com

ADD TO THIS LIST. SHARE IT WITH OTHERS. INCLUDE THIS & OTHER BLOG ADDRESSES WITH WHAT YOU PASS ALONG TO THEM IF IT IS YOUR SOURCE (even if it is your only source). MAKE THE PRESS DO THEIR HOMEWORK. THEY GET PAID TO DO IT RIGHT.

Don't forget to let your school board members know what you're reading, too, if you think it will help. (Again, get their e-mail addresses from the earlier post here, see above.)

Anonymous said...

I hope some of you are actually going to forward this information. Many "Charlestonians" seem eager to share their opinions, as long as it's done quietly. If we want change, we can't be quiet anymore.

Anonymous said...

I'm kind of sad at the thought of Jerry going (and for those of you who are curious, this is NOT Janet). Is this really true? I think I'm in denial. It was fun when he was identifying himself on the blog. I have to admit, I'll miss that gum-smacking guy...

Babbie said...

Where can the rules regarding dispersal of money from the Derthick fund be found? They must be a matter of public record. Are the funds supposed to be used exclusively for D20 children, as one commenter suggested?

And I'll miss Jerry's outrageous comments, too.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Janet Rose-Beale (Jerry's girl friend) is also in the line of fire. Given her deep involvement in the Buist cover-up I would imagine she has some explaining to do. She is an example of how bureaucrats in the educational system tend to make life miserable for everyone else. it is still amusing to watch "Blinky" when she gets nervous, especially when someone is asking her to explain something like the inconsistancies of her management of the Buist lottery. Oh how the rats appear to be running for cover. I wonder if this is all a teaser and just for show, or is it the beginning of something much bigger? If it means honesty and transparency for District 20, then bring it on.

Anonymous said...

I believe that someone has already requested info on the Derthick Fund under an FOIA request. It would be even nicer if someone were to confront Toya Green before the meeting of the county board on Monday about her involvement in this kind of sloppy leadership. Better still someone should send copies of all of this to the P&C, The Chronicle and The City Paper and let the chips fall where they may.

Anonymous said...

Why not send copies of these postings to Toya herself? She doesn't like it when she's seen as involved in this type of coverup and she's not been there for the Fraser community either, based on her comments during the board's executive sessions. Curiously she seems more preoccupied about plugging leaks than she is about conducting public business properly.

Anonymous said...

Even those of us that don't live downtown are sickened by this crew! Toya Green, Janet Rose, Jerry Adams, Greg Meyers, Nancy Cook and Sallie Ballard can't be trusted with anything if this is what they are doing to District 20. What are they up to that no one knows about? The sad thing is many people seem to be aware of so much but nothing gets done. This much smoke.....there has to be a lot more fire.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Gregg Meyers (again)-
Where DOES he live? I heard from several sources prior to the election that he did not live in the district he represents. No wonder he stayed quiet on the Buist fake address issue...he may be one himself.

Anonymous said...

Well I'm sure Toya Green does live downtown but she sure isn't looking out for the community. Who cares if Gregg Meyers lives in West Ashley again?

Anonymous said...

Do the people East of the Cooper know that one of their two represetatives on the county school board no longer lives there? Looks like Arthur Ravenel is their only resident representative. Too bad the county school board members don't have to sign documents under oath and the penalty of purjury that they live where they say they live.

A Color Blind Border said...

Let the parents living in Lowndes Point (just north of Mt. Pleasant Street and at the end of Sunnyside Dr.) think about Gregg Meyers and his personal fake address plan. These parents now weigh having to sign statements saying they live in Dist. 20 when they actually live in Dist. 4. The Downtown constituent board asked to have the City of Charleston portion of Dist. 4 reassigned to Downtown/Dist. 20...but no way, Greg Meyers and Hillery Douglas wouldn't give the people of Rosemont time of day. Now that rich white parents with kids attending Buist (who used fake addresses last year) are faced with the fact that they really ARE in North Charleston Dist. 4 (according to the maps), suddenly they get reassigned to Dist. 20. What about the rest of Rosemont Mr. Douglas and Mr. Meyers? Or is this change of the Dist. 20 lines only for white parents with kids at Buist?

Anonymous said...

Talk about school refugees and forcing us to raise our kids in the street! City of Charleston kids are assigned to six different school districts. We seem to be spending most of our resources trying to get our kids out of the districts we live in and into one we don't.

The six school districts that Charleston kids are being tossed into are Dist. 20 (old downtown/peninsula), Dist. 4 (part of The Neck annexed into city), Dist. 10 (West Ashley/St.Andrews), Dist. 3 (James Island), Dist. 9 (John's Island) and Berkeley County (Daniel Island).

Do you think Mt. Pleasant parents would have tolerated this kind of apartheide for one minute? Nope.

You'd think by now Charleston City residents would be in favor of a consolidated school district with vastly raised standards for all...except the one we have has failed to consolidate and increase anything except our tax bills.

Mayor Riley do you know where your school kids are? The least you could do is save our downtown kids from the indignity of being assigned to North Charleston schools where Hillery Douglas and Nancy Cook have done a particularly poor job.

memminger1945 said...

Too often we rely on the opinions of "experts" to make executive decisions like the one involving Sanders-Clyde and Fraser elementary schools. What if the "experts" haven't done their homework. Sure both schools are virtually 100% Black and both schools have a high percentage of free and reduced lunch kids. And both schools are located in the urban core of the city's Eastside. But that's where the similarities end. Goodloe-Johnson and other "experts" with briefcases from afar seem to think that's why these schools are alike. I know this may come as a shock to the superintendent and some of her strongest supporters (including the ministerial alliance and the NAACP) but just because black people all look alike to some of you, these two historically Black downtown school communities are very different and have equally different goals. In this case the "experts" didn't recognize anything beyond the superficial. Sanders-Clyde is unique as a public school that almost exclusively serves public housing residents, and meets the needs of these students in creative ways that are either not available or not recognized as useful by most neighborhood based elementary schools. Fraser parents are more market based in both their housing and job skills and have different needs and talents that they can bring to to the table on behalf of their children at Fraser. For example, Fraser parents e-mail each other to stay in touch on school issues; Sanders-Clyde parents rely on door-to-door contact in the projects that surround the school. One principal for these two schools would have to be a magician to pull off leading both communities requiring very different, even opposing, management styles to be employed at the same time. Unless Ms. Moore is flexible and is willing to let the Fraser parents take on responsibilities for themselves, unlike her very authoritative and central control methods at Sanders-Clyde, she is in for a rough ride and both schools are likely to suffer.

Dr. McGinley would be wise to look long and hard before putting one principal in charge of these two schools. She would be better advised to hire a full time and experience principal for each and then let their success of failure sort out the long term direction each these two schools will eventually take. Just merging them without regard for their unique issues is not leadership nor is it designed to produce fair results that benefit the students at either school.

Dr. Goodloe-Johnson and her core supporters may appear to be Black, and, as we know, appearance isn't everything. As G-J may have discovered in her dealings with downtown, it's a two way street in the Black community here. On issues like this, understanding the unique qualities of this community, as one Burke grandparent said not too long ago, "She just ain't one of us."

If Dr. McGinley expects to win over these people as supporters for her administration and the plan to improve downtown schools, she will need to sit down and listen to the many concerns of communities that don't immediately appear to be different. Likewise, she would be just as wise to not assume that shared goals are not possible among downtown groups because some people within those groups don't appear to be the same.

It's best not to assume too much about people in Charleston just by the way they look. Politics and economics are not just skin deep here. I would think that a Philadephia native might have some idea of how this might work to her advantage. Subtile differences that defy quick assumptions involving race, socio-economic and geographic stereotypes may have been an important characteristic of this community that has been missed by most of the school superintendents we have had. Or maybe they just weren't here long enough to figure it out on their own.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Memminger 1945. Fraser parent.

Anonymous said...

I hope Dr. McGinley can do something CCSD untouchables.

Anonymous said...

I don't mean to get technical here. But if we're going to use the term "untouchables," let's decide what it will mean (obviously I don't have anything better to do tonight). I used it on a previous post referring to the way CCSD has treated the Charter school founders. "Untouchables" being the people in India who were so low they weren't even a part of the caste system. Remember your history? Hindus believed touching an untouchable would make them unclean and they didn't even want to look at some of them (i.e. the unseeables). Does this ring a bell? Of course, I used sarcasm (apology to any Hindus for the improper usage).
So who are your untouchables?

Anonymous said...

Tomato...tomaatoo...
Potato...potaatoo...
We get it...
There are all types of untouchables in this system...some are the good who are treated badly and some are the bad who are treated well.
Let's just get rid of the politics and fix our downtown schools. Be gone ridiculous point system!!
We need our Title I funds for something other than reducing CLASS size!!

Anonymous said...

Speaking of the Charter School...
Just FYI, Hillary's sister Annette Goodwin had a nice long speech at the school board meeting tonight regarding her Charter school using the Rivers building.
Will Hillary suddenly be pro-Charter school for the Rivers building now?

Anonymous said...

Everyone wants to get into the act when they realize there's something in it for them. When will we finally have the guts to call these people out for what they are, pimps, prostitutes and johns. They're certainly not in this for the education of our kids. It's onlhy for a piece of the pie and a slice of power. I'm sick of all these outsiders calling themselves "stakeholders". Send these thieves and money changers packing. Our downtown schools are not for sale. They are for providing downtown kids a quality education first...then, if there's room, everyone else. Hillery can tell his sister to go back to Lincolnville. They've already made a mess of North Charleston, thank you. We don't need her to add to our woe downtown.

Anonymous said...

I really don't understand these self righteous opportunists that have come out of the woodwork like termites now that CCSD appears to have finally recognized that it has an almost totally empty classic high school building and campus sitting in the middle of downtown Charleston. They speak piously of saving trades, technical and vocational programs for "all the many inner city kids who the traditional school system has failed".

Here we go again. These same people turned a deaf ear to the parents and alumni of Burke for the last decade who have begged to have these programs restored to that school. On one hand CCSD justifies shutting down Dist. 20 schools and programs by saying it has declining enrollment. Well, which is it? Do we have declining enrollment or do we have thousands of drop outs living downtown who traditional public schools have failed? The numbers and hyperbole keep changing to suit the needs of whatever CCSD officials are arguing for or against today.

Here's the reality. A third of Burke's student body is not from the peninsula, Burke also lost a ton of students when its academic and vocational programs were stripped away, 1200 Dist. 20 kids go to public schools out of Dist. 20 because the programs are elsewhere and nearly 2000 downtown kids are either home schooled or attend private schools.

I think many of these kids who reportedly have been failed by our "traditional public schools" are from elsewhere in the county, only some are from downtown (not in large numbers), but in numbers that we could accomodate if we had the support within our existing schools. Actually the greatest losses of students "dropping out" of Dist. 20 are found among the thousands of downtown kids who have been turned away from downtown schools by the way the peninsula's public schools have been mismanaged by CCSD.

If these people really want to address the problems of Dist. 20, then CCSD should immediately impliment the Reconfiguration Plan that was approved but now sits on a shelf largely ignored. Restore the High Tech and Vocational Programs at Burke. Move on making their 7th & 8th grade programs as originally promised as an accelerated Academic Academy for the best of Dist. 20's middle schoolers. Fund the construction of a new Sanders-Clyde (not just talk about it) now that CCSD has torn down the old building. Fund all six of the proposed thematic elementary schools designed as neighborhood schools with small classes, especially among the three designed with grades K-8. Fix the cheating scandal involving address fraud at Buist and fully fund Chas. Progressive as a true magnet school. Share the Buist waiting list with Chas. Progressive.

And finally, allow the Charleston Charter School for Math and Science (grades 6-12) to move forward with the county's blessing. Challenge them to uphold the promises they have made for access and diversity under state law. Let them compete with Burke because Burke has always excelled when it has had to compete. Both schools will benefit from a healthy rivalry and so will Dist. 20.

And last but not least, tell the naysayers, interventionists, racist of all shades and otherwise ill-willed outsiders not really interested in Dist. 20, to just bug off.

Anonymous said...

One thing is certain. Get a tax break from government and the opportunity is there to use it as a cover for a tax increase by the school board. The capital fund is not covered by the recent tax reform laws. According to CCSD "the average $100,000 home" (there is no such thing in Charleton County) will see a $20 property tax increase. Fact is investor properties will see an even bigger increase. Don Kennedy is an idiot if he thinks this will go smoothly.

Anonymous said...

Diette's article about the school budget and its proposed "small" tax increase in today's paper provides little explanation on exactly how this works. CCSD's tax increases are a lot bigger than the average reader will initially take in from this newspaper report. Diette either doesn't understand the school budget process herself (she's not alone in that) or she is totally onboard with CCSD's disinformation campaign to keep local taxpayers in the dark. We know. It's now almost anti-American to oppose school taxes so why should the public be allowed to understand where school taxes actually come from?

Anonymous said...

Under the new tax laws only school operating fund (GOF) revenues are not charged to owner-occupied home owners (the state will pick up this part of the budget through a new state-wide sales tax program). Capital budget increases (a significant part of CCSD's total annual budget), however, are not exempted and are passed on as school property taxes to everyone.

It's suspiciously convenient that Mr. Kennedy uses $100,000 as the "average" value because the formula for calculating property taxes have until now been different and lower on the first $100,000. It would have helped if Diette pointed out any changes in this approach. If no change to this has occurred, then taxes are still caculated as higher on the portion of a property's value over $100,000.

Then there's the little matter of 4% vs. 6% assessments. Over half the taxable properties in Charleston County are not owner occupied, so Mr. Kennedy's neat little figure of a "typical" tax increase of just under $20 (for every #100,000) is not only misleading, he's deliberately used a 4% assessment that only applies to owner occupied properties (not businesses, cars, boats or anything else that is not the primary legal residence of its owner).

There are many more questions that need answers about how CCSD spins its annual budget show which it takes on the road every year about this time. It's designed to confuse rather than educate the public.

Anonymous said...

The reader of this article has to do additional work which is in itself confusing. If we take only the information given by the P&C reporter we can conclude that CCSD is very optimistic that it will get approximately $10 million more as a gift from the legislative delegation for its GOF as a result of its plea earlier this year to hold CCSD harmless for changes in the state's school funding formulas. Never mind that this formula was specifically designed to share the state's education funds equitably (not necessarily equally) between poor school districts and rich ones like Charleston.

CCSD is also proposing an additional $10 million tax increase for GOF revenues that will directly hit all local tax payers for owners of non-legal residences. (Look out Buist parents! They're about to get hit for changing their million dollar beach front homes to 6% just to qualify a much cheaper efficiency condo downtown as their residence and get their kid into Buist.) And that's not all.

The budget is also looking for an additional $8 million in capital revenues from local property taxpayers that will not exempt anyone. With these three new money sources, my calculations show that's a $28 million increase in school tax related revenues is being proposed by CCSD for next year, not just $10 million. Why didn't Diette's article point this out?

If the average home in Charleston County is now worth $245,000 (not $100,000) then the "average" taxpayer who only pays taxes on their owner occupied home may see an increase that could be closer to $90 (not the figure Mr. Kennedy uses). The real kick in the pants will come to non-owner occupied property taxpayers. We'll have to wait until September to see what that will be. The only certainty is not to rely on Don Kennedy to tell us the truth about taxes now. His figures are suspect.

The P&C needs to learn to do their own investigative work and the P&C definately needs to quit using CCSD newsreleases as a substitute for journalism.

Anonymous said...

And there's that constant jab at Charter Schools by CCSD. Why does Diette and the P&C keep allowing CCSD to to this?

Here's an exclusive, ya'll. There's absolutely no increased cost to Charleston County taxpayers for funding local charter schools.

The only thing that gets CCSD all hot and bothered about Charter Schools is this. CCSD officials are required by the state's charter school law to release direct control of a charter school's funds and hand the total funds approved for a charter schools budge directly to the school based management.

There are still oversight rules but CCSD can't withhold the funds in order to extort the Charter School into doing something that isn't already in the school's charter. CCSD can't use the restrict use of the funds already allocated to a charter school or threaten to redirect the funds later. It's a control thing and not at all about added costs to either CCSD or county taxpayers. It is widely known that JI Charter HS has been so successful at being careful and frugal with its funding. JI administrators make contractors compete for the lowest costs instead of using CCSD's "preferred" vendors. JI has been able to save over $1 million which it has placed in reserve for funding future educational enrichment programs that it might not otherwise have afforded.

CCSD would like us to believe this is a waste when in fact CCSD would have spent it by not being as careful or as frugal as JICHS. The insentive just isn't there for the county school board or the central management of CCSD.

As for JI Charter High School's total funding, this is exactly the same money (based on average county-wide per student funding) that other county public high schools receive. The funds come from the same overall county school district revenues. CCSD just can't mismanage it in their usual fashion.

Anonymous said...

Babbie-
It's taking too long to scroll down. We need you to start a new comment section...I guess the question is...where do you begin?

Babbie said...

To the last commenter: that's what I've been trying to decide. Coming soon!