Maybe the P & C's copy editor doesn't know how to spell. We hope that Superintendent McGinley does or, at least, knows the difference between "premier" meaning first and "premiere" meaning first performance. The "time has come for Charleston County schools to excel," her op-ed piece headlined Friday, but let's first excel in communication! I'd hate to think this a Freudian slip where the Superintendent inadvertently telegraphs her view of her job as a show performance.McGinley first overstates baldly, "Charleston is among our nation's premiere [italics mine] communities, a place of unmatched beauty and opportunity." Why, even Gone with the Wind premiered in Atlanta. Seriously, many inhabitants will tell you that Charleston's opportunity is hardly "unmatched." Opportunity to do what? Make money? Find a job? You mean, people no longer say, "Go west, young man"? Instead, it's "Go to Charleston County. . . Ignore New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles if you're looking for opportunity!" Right.
Beauty--well, perhaps that is "unmatched," or at least in the eye of the beholder.
"This wonderful county is a destination of choice for people from all over the world," I can see them right now, sitting in Bangladesh and Haiti and South Korea, saying, 'Now, if we can just get to Charleston County. . .
"and our schools should also be destinations of choice for all who seek the best possible education for their children." One fact for sure is that's not the case now! Have you EVER met anyone who claims to have moved here for the public schools? What a hoot!
Yet, I'd like to think that those who know the county as the place where their families have lived for generations deserve schools that are more than a "destination of choice" for outsiders. Is that what this is all about?
"Now is the time for the Charleston County School District to become the high quality school system that this world-class community needs and deserves." Platitudes.
"In order for that to happen, we need to take some big steps, and we need to take them quickly. . . . With this reality in mind, as superintendent, I can make one of two choices: 1) Maintain the status quo and be satisfied with the modest gains we have made for the past four years;". . . Please, don't insult our intelligence with this wholly imaginary choice. . .
"or 2) Accept the responsibility to change the organization and implement a clear and reasoned plan in order to significantly improve our schools." "I choose the latter." This IS her job.
"It is time to make the philosophical and practical leap from "planning for excellence" to declaring that "excellence is our standard." More platitudes.
"Simply stated, we must organize our schools under a leadership structure built on expertise and experience, not geography or tradition." Oh, great. Talk about having a tin ear for her constituency--tell a bunch of Southerners to toss out tradition!
"Continuing to operate the way we always have in CCSD would be 'the path of least resistance,' However, in my view, it would also be educational malpractice and a disservice to our hardworking teachers, principals, and — most importantly — our students." I'm glad we can agree on something; however, so far it's seen as business as usual on your watch.
"My call for change is based on a clear and unwavering commitment to a singular goal: increasing student achievement. For all children, in all schools, I believe that the victory is in the classroom." More platitudes. But "singular"? Don't you mean "single"? There's nothing singular about the goal, Nancy. You look it up.
"To ensure that victory, I have made several concrete recommendations, beginning with identifying leaders who know what to do to support principals at each grade level. Historically, five associate superintendents supervised different geographic regions of the county and have had to juggle the varied challenges of elementary, middle and high schools. Under the new structure, the associate superintendents will supervise instead by grade levels — elementary, middle, or high schools." I won't bore you with the rest of this. You can always jump over to the P & C itself. Let's just point out that this is the plan that violated the Freedom of Information Act when discussed in secret session with the school board.
"Structural changes alone will not produce the improvements we need." So glad you realize that.
"Some learners simply need more time. To meet this need, I'm also proposing an extended-year initiative: Students in schools rated as "unsatisfactory" would attend 20 additional days of schools, for a total of 200 days per year." Has anyone explained how this will work for students whose achievement IS satisfactory that are stuck in those schools?
. . ."Extensive research confirms that extended-year initiatives are successful in helping students who have fallen behind by providing extra help and continuity to the educational experience." Sorry, this is like putting lipstick on a pig. This so-called "third semester" of 20 days, as announced, may indeed be effective, but it simply replaces that old entity called "summer school."
Here begin a series of ironic statements that need no commentary. You can supply your own.
- I want to hear from you, and I need your help in making this happen.
- Although change is always difficult, in the five days since my reorganization proposal became public, the reaction from our teachers, administrators and the public can be largely summarized as: 'Why haven't we thought of this sooner? It makes so much sense.
- I also accept the responsibility to be transparent when proposing changes.
- I welcome the opportunity to engage in public discussions. I would never have it any other way.
- I look forward to hearing more from the public.
Posts
6 comments:
How about the comments made at Burke last week regarding her "Peninsula Project". You know, the one she's been working on for 4-5 months but hasn't shown anyone? Transparent? I think not.
Did anyone hear Mary Girault call Chas. Progressive an "excellent school" last week at the Burke community meeting? Does she know the middle school is under ERT scrutiny? Is that what we call "excellent" in this town?
How thoughtful of all these people (McGinley, Girault, Darby and the fact checkers at the P&C) to recognized that those of us on the peninsula have been so disabled by the misfortunes of race and income that we need to be measured with a modified yard stick, one pulled from their double standard tool box reserved for District 20.
They are so enlightened to know that we might be unable to reach too high a level. Setting too high a standard might cause too many of us to become discouraged and drop out of the public schools we have left. (We have a drop-out rate of over 60% as it is and that’s not counting a couple of thousand of middle class kids who left the public school system altogether.) These people must certainly be our friends because they are doing us a favor by bending the rules. We can’t help it. We’re trapped, not by poor schools, but by the accident of our birth that determined our race and financial status. Race and income is why we have poor schools. They and their families, of course, have not been so encumbered. They want us to know that they are righteously committed to a mission of doing what they know is right for us. This is because we are so disabled downtown and can’t possibly know what’s good for us.
When we reach “average” just tell us it’s “excellent” and we’ll be good with it. In the mean time, we remain totally dependent on these charlatans from the suburbs. Those of us in the inner city are often reminded that we should be happy to aspire to minimum wage jobs. Hospitality and tourism jobs must be seen as good for downtown kids. And they start telling this to first graders downtown just to make sure we get it. Not everyone goes to college, you know!
When public officials make excuses for the perceived limitations they have chosen to assign to others due to race or economics there are negative consequences. If we don’t object when we hear them, by default we are saying it’s OK. These excuses allow our leaders to get away with not doing their job AND we give new license to official sanctioned discrimination against anyone who might be pegged as having less value or even expendable. How many times do we have to repeat this cycle to know that policies that rely on the use of double standards are not good investments? The lie of low expectations doesn’t just crush the spirit of some, it hurts us all eventually.
He’s a broken record. Joe Darby’s op-ed returned this morning to the regular space he gets monthly for free from the P&C. If Rev. Darby doesn’t understand why a public charter school shouldn’t be required to pay rent for the use of a vacant public school building located in the neighborhood where its prospective public school students now live, then maybe he might want to explain this little contradiction.
Why does his church on Morris St. not have to pay tens of thousands of dollars annually in public property taxes on a very valuable commercial parking lot it owns, but instead of using it for church purposes, the good Reverend leases it for a handsome profit to a private developer who uses it to enhance another private development for another handsome profit?
Unlike the Rivers deal, Rev. Darby’s church parking lot lease sounds like a better example of a public subsidy that supports a private project. And this scam has Joe Darby’s approval. Say it ain’t so Joe!
Babbie, you’re right about one thing. A newspaper is supposed to set high standards for its reporting of news and its choice of words. It's not unusual for a local newspaper's content to be used by well heeled visitors to judge a city's potential for growth. The P&C flunks basic grammar and scores even lower on content. Thanks, Babbie, for calling the P&C out on this one but also for not breaking out the teacher’s red pencil on your well meaning posters. Unlike those who work at the P&C, this really isn’t their day job.
Post a Comment