YouthBuild Builds at Last: CCSD Soap Opera

The long, sad odyssey of Sea Islands YouthBuild Charter School seems to be coming to a resolution, if a temporary one. Today's P & C reports that the school finally has a building. [See Sea Islands YouthBuild Home at Last ]

At the end of the school year. The school managed to dodge the cut-off of district funds several times during the year [see several postings on this blog], but this summer the CCSD School Board will be forced to choose: is it going to fund this school in the future or not? Has the school met its obligations to remain in good standing?

Comparisons have been made between Sea Islands and the new Charter School for Math and Science over the last few months. It's time to take stock. The two charters certainly have been treated differently by the CCSD School Board; that's because, leaving aside differences in their missions, these two charters are entirely different in genesis, motivation, and parental involvement. Perhaps there are some lessons to be learned.

• Sea Islands was encouraged by 75 Calhoun to form under the well-meaning guidance of a former employee of CCSD and friend of 75 Calhoun in order to meet the needs of older at-risk students who would no longer be eligible for Murray Hill Academy because the district changed its policies regarding Murray Hill. The students targeted for YouthBuild were unlikely to have much parental support or involvement in its organization.
  
• Charter School for Math and Science started as a grass-roots effort among parents of District 20 students who were discouraged by their choices of failing schools. From the beginning, it seems, the CCSD board was miffed that it did not control the actions of this group.
  
• When the CCSD Board of Trustees approved YouthBuild, it failed in its duty to these needy students by trustingly accepting the word of its organizer that a facility that would meet state standards was available for use. Such was not the case.
• The CCSD Board of Trustees never trusted CSMS in any regard because it hated the idea of a charter high school downtown, with members repeatedly hinting that its organizers were racists. Strong grass-roots support among all races downtown won over public opinion.
  
• The lack of a building and monthly perambulations of YouthBuild from pillar to post, coupled with lack of busing, guaranteed a major reduction in the number of students in attendance. Meanwhile, the district continued to pay funds based on initial numbers of students. Records of attendance were not made available to the district when requested.
• When CSMS organizers saw the old Rivers High School building sitting vacant and requested its use, the School Board attempted to quash and/or gain control over it by suggesting exorbitant rent, then raising the number of millions needed to bring the building up to standards (never mind that the building had been vacant for a very brief period) to a ridiculous figure.
• Perhaps as part of its agreement with CCSD to keep getting funding despite its not following the rules, Sea Islands did not ask for space in public school buildings, although certainly such space exists. Now it has signed a three-year contract to rent an old warehouse that students themselves will renovate.
  

According to Larry Blasch, chairman of YouthBuild's board, "the school will spend another $30,000 improving the space so it can clear state and local inspections and be occupied by students." So the space will finally meet requirements just as school is getting out for the summer?

Given that expenditure and the signing of a three-year contract, it seems reasonable to assume that the fix is in, even though the Board will be not updated in regard to continuing its support until its meeting later this month.

Taxpayers deserve to know what CCSD has gotten for their money in regard to students at YouthBuild: How many credits have been earned per tax dollar? How many diplomas?

And has CCSD learned its lesson?

CCSD's Bill Lewis: Pure as Caesar's Wife?

CCSD Superintendent Nancy McGinley began her series of budget meetings lamenting the projected shortfall in funding the district's yearly operating budget, while Bill Lewis, the executive director of its building program, had to explain his rejection of the low bid for the new North Charleston middle school.

Now, you and I know that the building fund and yearly budget for CCSD are separate from each other, but in the public mind it's all going down the same sinkhole. Lewis's action hardly was of assistance to McGinley's quest or fair to the taxpayers. According to the president of the Charleston Contractors' Association, "the way the system is set up . . . gives the appearance that something wrong is happening." Is it?

What did happen here? Well, according to the P & C's story of last Sunday, the low bid from Infinger Construction was never considered, since Lewis decided to "save time and enable the school to open in August 2009." Saving time, not dollars, was his highest priority. This arrogance led to a negotiated bid with the highest-rated company that will cost us $400,000 more.

"Highest-rated company" sounds good until you look into the details. According to the article, "The school board chose to spend the extra money so a company that it rated as higher quality would do the construction work." That WHO rated? Lewis stated that "contractors are evaluated on two criteria: the technical aspects of their plans — such as their approach, their team and prior performance — and their price." Notice the passive voice here--allowing Lewis to avoid saying who assigned the ratings.

One of two things happened here. Either Infinger was blackballed by Dorchester District 2 with no recourse, or a "few district-appointed people" made a subjective decision that the contractor's quality is not as it should be. The school board, in its usual fashion, followed Lewis's lead. Question: Can they show that Infinger's prior work for the district did not meet its standards? No mention of that.

Some of us might remember that the district no longer accepts kickbacks from contractors in the form of donations, parties, etc., such as last year's goodbye party to Goodloe-Johnson. Now I'm getting too cynical.

Speaking of which, what ever happened to the search for a qualified financial officer to replace Don Kennedy? Did I miss something here?

Summey-McGinley: Let's Ask the Real Questions

While the citizens of Charleston County continue to anticipate true give-and-take meetings with CCSD Superintendent McGinley, Mayor Keith Summey of North Charleston managed to arrange a meeting for himself and his City Council. As reported in the P & C, Wednesday became an opportunity for both officials to spout platitudes and congratulate each other on their sound ideas. [See North Charleston Asks Education Questions . ]

Summey's impetus seems to have been the desire to convince the City Council to vote funds for three-hour after-school programs at all of North Charleston's elementary schools. These would require parental involvement and the part-time services of a teacher-coordinator (paid by the city). McGinley thinks CCSD and North Charleston should "work together to figure out how to fund them." Right.

McGinley's motivation clearly was to show off to the Council her enlightened policies and plans while glossing over the past failures of CCSD (to be fair, not done on her watch). These include (1) encouraging teachers who want to curry favor with 75 Calhoun ("move up the education ladder") to teach in failing schools and (2) replacing more than half of the experienced principals in the district with "talented individuals." Of course, she trotted out the usual excuses about high-poverty areas, poorly-educated parents (whose fault is that?), and the "comeback" of "once-stigmatized trade-school courses" (who took them out? who stigmatized them?).

Since Summey urged her not to leave CCSD until they come to fruition, he bit--hook, line, and sinker. But there's no reason to think that he wasn't already privately convinced before the public meeting took place.

In perhaps the most ironic follow-up I've seen recently, the article goes on to quote Bill Lewis's contribution that "the district is spending $211 million to build or upgrade new schools in North Charleston."

We've all seen the correlation between brand-spanking-new school buildings and achievement. Yes? And Lewis had the temerity to include the new campus for the Academic Magnet and School of the Arts in his numbers! Let's take those millions out, Bill. Those are only North Charleston schools geographically. Wouldn't it be interesting to discover what percentage of students graduating from North Charleston elementary schools attend either AMHS or the School of the Arts? Let's guess: 1 -2 % tops would be mine.

Other comments made reveal the fuzzy thinking involved in the planning of these programs that practically guarantees poor outcomes:

• Summey wants to "mandate" parental involvement. Isn't he concerned that the children whose parents won't (or are unable to) participate and thus won't be eligible are those that extra help needs to reach the most.
• Somehow the "site-coordinator" (teacher) will be deciding upon "recreation or whatever specialty" individual children are "interested in." Will playing video or soccer games make for academic success? Will the child choose to be "interested in" drilling math facts?
• If these programs "could help parents as well," to read and write adequately, where will its focus be? On children's achievement or that of their parents? Did anybody say "adult education classes"?
• Summey wants "local businesses to look to the schools for part-time help"--that would be high schools presumably. Has it occurred to him or to CCSD that business-school partnerships rather than vague desires would ensure results?

Summey really wants to improve the elementary schools in North Charleston? He needs to invite Director Cecelia Gordon Rogers of the Charleston Development Academy Charter School to a City Council meeting for a chat. As I said back in February,

I hope that others [. . .] are taking notes on how Ebenezer AME, Rogers, and the community have succeeded with this school. Visiting the school's website, I was struck by the following statement: " CDA incorporates The Charleston Plan of Excellence, The Coherent Curriculum, and The Core Knowledge Curriculum [italics mine] as the foundation teaching tools."

The Core Curriculum (an anathema to McGinley, no doubt) is one of the best hopes for those unfortunate children who enter elementary school from low-income and poorly-educated backgrounds. It can level the playing field if given a chance. Kids in the "projects" are succeeding at CDA.

Just ask Ms. Rogers how, Mr. Summey.

Bill "Tear-em-Down" Lewis Continues CCSD Rampage

My prediction is that, when Bill Lewis gets through with CCSD, there won't be a building left standing that wasn't built on his watch.

The latest controversy is over tearing down the Jennie Moore Elementary building in Mt. Pleasant. See [Group fights to save school .] Funny thing, those most affected are objecting. Today's P & C neatly encapsulates Lewis's philosophy of razing. According to the article,

Bill Lewis is executive director of the school district's building program.

• which qualifies him to tear down every ante-Lewis school in the County.
  

The preservation group [Gullah Heritage Foundation] has been invited to participate in the planning process for the new schools to ensure the Gullah heritage is incorporated in the new campus. . .

• a plaque? a picture?
  

but the school district isn't in the position to give a building to them because the Jennie Moore land is needed for new schools, [Lewis] said.

• because of the way he's planning to utilize the property
  

The school district has been able to buy the land adjacent to Jennie Moore, which is an ideal spot for the new Laing

• which brings up another school that shouldn't be moved, but when Bill Lewis talks, CCSD listens--or is it the other way around?
  

and creates a similar synergy to the schools in Park West, Lewis said.

• "Synergy" is a 50-cent word for "traffic jam"
  

Jennie Moore will be expanded from 500 to 800 students,

• so that it will lose its small-school atmosphere and become another "government learning center" to warehouse students
  

and the cost to renovate, expand and ensure that it meets current codes would cost almost the same as a new building, he said.

• well, then don't expand. Anyway, after what's happened with Lewis's figures on renovating the old Rivers High Building, does anyone trust his calculations?
  

Laing Middle also will be expanded,

• so that it, too, will become another government learning center to warehouse students
  

and its current site is too small to hold a new school with the desired capacity.

• let's see--who's desiring this capacity? Lewis or the parents of students now slated to attend Laing?
  

The district plans to sell the Laing site and use the proceeds to help fund its new building.

• Sell? No kidding. I wonder which developer with ties to CCSD and Joe Riley will be buying.
  

All schools are built to be community centers, Lewis said.

• Well, now that's clear!

$24 Million for What, Hillery?

Is anyone else as tired as I am of the obstructionist ways of CCSD Board of Trustees Chairman Hillery Douglas? Friday's P & C provides yet another example of his smug, you-can't-touch-me-but-I-don't-support-charter-schools-I-can't-control remarks. See Bill would bar district rent charges for charter schools].

Apart from the question of a public [charter] school's paying rent to use a public school building, Douglas is quoted as asking,

whether the district should pay for an upgrade to a district building [that's a building owned by the public, Hillery] that a charter school wanted to use. That's what's happening in Charleston: The school district has agreed to let the math and science charter school use the former Rivers Middle School building, but making the building safe for students is going to require $24 million. Decisions about such situations should be left to school districts and charter schools, Douglas said.

Douglas would have us believe that giving space in CCSD buildings to charter schools [note--not controlled by Douglas and his ilk] will cost the district MILLIONS of dollars it otherwise would not need to spend. How disingenuous is that?

Charter school organizer Park Dougherty hits the nail on the head:

"there's always another way to attempt to block us." The point of contention involving the math and science school has shifted from rent to the "alleged needs" of the building, he said.

Because, new legislative bill or not, the rent issue is dead on arrival. Even Gregg Meyers is ready to throw in the towel on that one.

Twenty-four million dollars to renovate Rivers? "Alleged" is right. Maybe just a few of us remember that it wasn't so long ago that the district was using that building? That, when first approached by the Charter High School, the district's own estimates of making it usable again were less than half what Bill Lewis claims is needed now.

Where are the brakes on this out-of-control spending on brick and mortar? Only the very gullible--and those with a financial interest--believe that the Rivers building isn't "safe" without these millions. If Lewis announces in February or March that the costs have escalated to $50 million for renovations, who's going to call him to account? Not Douglas, obviously.

Reality Check: $14 Million Elephant in the Room

Does anyone with an office in the Taj Mahal EVER admit a mistake?

If the results of CCSD's hiring of Community Education Partners (CEP) also portend the results of Superintendent McGinley's newer plans, we're in real trouble here. The P & C 's article Tuesday regarding Murray Hill Academy was as polite as it could possibly have been, given the circumstances of this major fiasco. Probably CCSD school board members at Monday's meeting also veiled their comments.

It's time for a reality check here.

1. Would CCSD have hired CEP if then-Chief Academic Officer McGinley had not recommended they do so (probably at the urging of her Broad Foundation helpers)? NO
2. Did McGinley assume that Charleston's problems were analogous to Philadelphia's? YES
3. Did CCSD spend $5 million to "warehouse" perhaps a total of 600 students over a period of 2 and 1/2 years? WOW
4. For this princely sum, did CEP ever provide an effective principal and enough certified teachers for students to get credits? NO
5. Did McGinley negotiate a contract with CEP that required students to attend for 180 days but now claim that is too long to be effective for CCSD's students? YES
6. Did the building never reach capacity because CCSD didn't assign enough students? YES
7. Was the $9 million building built specifically for CEP according to its specifications? WHAT FORESIGHT
8. Did CCSD assign fewer than 70 students to that new $9 million building this fall? YES
9. Is McGinley suggesting rooms in this specially-built school be used for office space? YES
10. That would be because the Taj Mahal has grown too small for all its bureaucrats or because it is falling apart? WHO KNOWS?

This list could be longer, but what would be the point? According to McGinley, "Charleston has been fortunate to have the company run Murray Hill." What does she think would happen if she admitted a mistake? Would the sky fall? Or would community members begin to be more confident that she's leveling with them?

More importantly, how can we hold CCSD more responsible for spending in the future? Just think of all those lovely building and renovation projects Bill Lewis has on the table and his escalating estimates for the renovation of the old Rivers High School building. Is anyone watching the store?

CCSD's Vocational Partership: Read Between the Lines

Waaah! We don't have the proper classrooms to offer career classes at our high schools! But to make up for it, we're thinking creatively about the needs of students in the second half of the 21st century!

That, in its essence, is the response of Bob Olson, CCSD bureaucrat, to a successful partnership between West Ashley and Garrett Academy coddled to completion by a dedicated guidance counselor on his vacation last summer. In the program 19 West Ashley students manage to take career electives at Garrett.

The headlines are about its success [see Career school partnership sparkles]. However, towards the end of the article, we learn what that success means to current CCSD students.

If not for the dedication of a guidance counselor and officials at West Ashley, even this pilot program wouldn't have gotten off the ground.

According to Epstein (the WA guidance counselor), "West Ashley is the only high school in the district that has made this agreement with Garrett a reality, and . . . it's not because downtown district officials were pushing to make it happen." [Note: I hope Epstein's job is secure!]

Instead, CCSD is pushing for pie in the sky, by and by.

"Olson said officials don't have any concrete plans to grow the partnership but said they are looking at other ways to create more options and choices for students." [Nameless officials? Other ways for next year? Don't hold your breath.]

CCSD never imagined that a need would arise for career courses in its other high schools.

"Some of the trade programs need specific types of buildings and can't be housed in traditional classrooms." [Duh. How old are West Ashley, Burke, and Wando High Schools? Did the buildings they replaced have any suitable classrooms? Was the subject even on CCSD's radar screen when these new buildings were planned? Have communities asked for such programs in the past? Yes.]

Where are plans to add programs that don't need specialized settings?

According to Olson, "[nameless] officials are evaluating schools' course offerings, buildings and the community's needs to see what needs to be done in the future." [Ah, yes, the future.]

How about NOW?

Blog Commenters' Top 20 Quotes of the Year

1. Politicians are stupid, generally speaking, but they make for good conversations.
2. Investigative reporting is obviously not the P&C’s strong suit.
3. [In the Buist lottery] An antiquated bingo ball machine would at least allay fears of malfeasance or manipulation.
4. Give Sallie [Ballard] a break. She recruited and did test prep at 4K programs on James Island and not downtown for a number of good reasons. For one she didn't want to steal from the downtown elementary schools that need numbers for Maria Goodloe-Johnson's points system.
5. In my day these downtown people would have minded their own business and appreciated public servants like Gregg Meyers.
6. It might be appropriate to ask how many [. . . ] real estate deals have determined the direction of our downtown schools?
7. Oh, this has to be a bad movie. Hollywood couldn't write this stuff if they tried.
8. What's the real mission of CCSD under its present leadership? Is it to operate successful public schools for all, or is it to manipulate the half billion dollars a year in public education dollars to benefit other interests, including graft from within?
9. Will someone from the Broad Institute, which trained and recommended G-J for this position, please either take credit for this style of leadership or disavow it altogether.
10. GOD I HOPE THE PEOPLE IN SEATTLE AREN'T READING OUR COMMENTS [about Goodloe-Johnson].
11. No one [in circles of power in 1963] considered that in its death throes, Dist. 20 might actually fight back. Certainly no one ever thought that white and black residents of the peninsula might actually form alliances in a common effort to reestablish quality schools open to all within the inner city.
12. Before McGinley tries to cast herself as doing missionary work in the Deep and Un-Reconstructed South or confronting the ills of abject poverty among minorities relegated to vast urban ghettos, she should first calibrate her aim relative to real conditions . . . .
13. For those of you who aren't familiar with CCSD, some refer to our rural districts as the last ditch before you're dumped.
14. That very bright child at Memminger is too valuable to hand over to Buist. If a school such as Memminger loses 2 or 3 of those high PACT scorers it could mean their school report card drops to failing.
15. When was the last time county school board members and senior school district administrators allowed individual members of the public to ask them direct questions?
16. If Dr. McGinley isn't committed to changing what Dr. Goodloe wouldn't, then she should be gone in a year. This is her one and only chance to demonstrate professional integrity by reaching out to restore trust.
17. I thought the P&C was doing a "feel good" article on the local NAACP organization to be featured in the "Faith and Values" portion of an upcoming Sunday edition. I guess when someone checked the data on the local NAACP chapter led by Dot Scott and her comrade in arms, Joe Darby, they realized the article might have to be placed on the obit pages instead.
18. 75 Calhoun is a cheap, poorly designed and expensive to operate building. It's falling apart. Look closely at the public garage, too. It's cracking. It's all part of a sweetheart deal involving the city, CCSD and the chosen contractors that were paid off with the padded overpriced contracts. We're paying now for a building that is less than 20 years old but is still falling apart.
19. Nothing will change unless they are forced to change through the court system.
20. There should be very little tolerance for failure when people start mucking with the education of children. We’ve allowed CCSD and its questionable experts to do this for nearly 40 years without holding anyone accountable.

McGinley:Deja Vu All Over Again

Welcome to Goodloe-Johnson redux.


New Superintendent McGinley did not promise change to get her position; in fact, she had to indicate that her tenure would be more of the same. If the days between August 21st, the first day of school, and September 21st, the first day of fall, are a leading indicator, she's holding true to that promise.


Let's look at the record.

• Is CCSD still throwing everything but the kitchen sink in the path of the new Charter High School of Math and Science?
• Are meetings being held in CCSD in violation of the Freedom of Information Act?
• Has any progress been made on the details of the phantom "AP Academy" at Burke or the phantom "High-Tech High" at Rivers?
• Has any progress been made on ending de facto segregation in District 20?
• Does Fraser still have half a principal and multiple substitute teachers instead of permanent ones?
• Has Charleston Progressive received any of the resources that would make it a true magnet school instead of a magnet in name only?
• Is Buist Academy still hiding vacancies in its upper grades while a thousands-strong waiting list, well, waits?
• Have the Superintendent and Bill Lewis surprised an unsuspecting District 20 with the planned destruction of two neighborhood schools?
• Is the District now channeling resources that should have gone to CPA into a school it plans to destroy?
• Has the overflow of disgruntled Buist applicants channeled by fiat into St. Andrews Elementary caused multiple ongoing problems and an overcrowded school?
• Has the Superintendent allowed a free flow of conversation with any constituency in CCSD besides the school board?
• Is CCSD still channeling dollars into non-profits that don't produce?
• Is the Mayor still meddling in CCSD and claiming not to?

Apparently the one constant here is NO CHANGE.

No trust, either.

Rivers Building Renovation: Why $24 Million Sinkhole?

Indignation continues to mount over CCSD's bare-knuckled attempt to knock out the new Charter High School for Math and Science by charging unreasonable rent to a public school desiring to use a public school building. However, lost in the heat of battle is a proper focus on the escalating estimation of the cost of renovating the Rivers building for its use.

Renovation costs pegged at $10 million only months ago are now estimated at $24 million! Why this sinkhole??? No use proposed by charter high school proponents has brought about this unconscionable increase.

Is it a case of Bill Lewis's inability to add and subtract, the contractor's being given a blank check, or CCSD's attempt to show that the charter high will be too expensive?

The Post and Courier routinely treats outrageously high building costs in CCSD as ordinary. Now we even have relatively new buildings, such as the "Taj Mahal" and West Ashley High School, requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars in repairs.

No wonder residents complain about school taxes: they suspect that money is going down the sinkhole. Meanwhile, schools like Charleston Progressive suffer and beg for library books.

Taj Mahal Falls Apart: No, Not THAT One! CCSD's

Patched up cracked garage support beams, crumbling stucco, mold---

Just as Charlestonians have a fond nickname for the Post and Courier [that would be the Newsless Courier], they also have an apt name for the Charleston County School District's administrative offices found at 75 Calhoun Street--yes, the Taj Mahal.

Thanks to an intrepid reader of this blog, we all can see that this expensive building project less than 20 years old is falling apart. Makes you wonder who cut corners in construction and whether the architectural firm of LS3P Associates knew what it was doing. You say all 20-year-old buildings fall apart like this? Show me. Did Bill Lewis oversee this project?

The present budget for repairs is over half a million dollars of TM (that's Taxpayers' Money) but rising because, of course, construction costs always rise. How much expenditure the original contract covers is unclear.

Given what just transpired in Minnesota, you may not want to park in the parking garage.

Front Page News! CCSD's Conflict of Interest

Wow! What a pleasant surprise this morning to see on the P & C's front page coverage of CCSD that wasn't a puff piece extolling district administration. I almost wondered if the editors had been reading my blog.




Friday night was Goodloe-Johnson's going-away-party at the Charleston Yacht Club, but going away wasn't the focus of the article. No, it focused on "three recipients of multimillion- dollar contracts with the Charleston County School District [who] collectively contributed $7,000 for" the party. Goodloe-Johnson was not amused. She must have been shocked to get probing questions from Courrege: in fact, she called such questions "'tacky'." That's as in "lacking good taste"?

Most people would call these contributions kickbacks; they have nothing to do with good taste but are, in some corrupt circles, considered a cost of doing business. The biggest contributor to the party's costs provides custodial services to three-fourths of the constituent districts. It has a multi-million dollar contract that could be extended, especially if it's nice to the administration. Two other companies are "construction management firms for the district's building program." Their "program management" fees total about $17 million over the next few years. What's a minor payment when so much is at stake?

And Don Kennedy's defense: "most of the district's major contractors make donations to the district. School officials who work with the companies asked them to give money for the event."

Well, that's clear, then. Those donations CERTAINLY couldn't be considered kickbacks!

And to cement the soundness of the practice, Kennedy pointed out that the district did the same for Ron McWhirt.

Oh, well then. If they did it in the past, it MUST be okay.

"Kennedy said the district doesn't solicit money from companies that could soon be submitting contract proposals to the district, and he didn't see the donations as a conflict."

Well, he wouldn't, would he? After all, he doesn't see it as a conflict of interest that he sits on the audit committee that selects the auditing firm that audits himself.

They must still be searching for the tattler who told Ravenel where the funds came from. Unfortunately, Ravenel, who chose not to attend as a result, was the only board member who did see the conflict, or as he said, "'It doesn't pass the smell test.' It's difficult for companies that do business with political entities to turn down requests for money for events."

Well, duh. I wonder what the other board members thought.

CCSD Finances: Always a Murky Topic

Two articles in today's Newsless Courier are reminders that CCSD is one of a few school boards in the state that does not have some financial oversight. Sigh.

In the Local and State section, we learn of the escalation of construction costs--more than 10 percent over the last two years--of the new Academic Magnet HS and of the new School of the Arts as well as Stall HS--because the district proposed to delay--if it ever would build--a promised North Charleston middle school.

Sorry, I can't imagine its proposing to do that to Mount Pleasant!

Still, the overruns of costs are disturbing.
See "Board Rejects Delay for Middle School" "http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=localnews&tableId=128680&pubDate=1/30/2007

Then, the Business section reports on CCSD's suing local tech firms regarding software development, one of them identified as "one of the area's most promising high-tech firms." The squabble, over who owns or is entitled to income from software developed in conjunction with CCSD, also partakes of the shell-game of a start-up company that went out of business and its sister company that never had a contract with the district but went on to engage in similar games with the state Department of Education.

See "2 Companies, Founder Sued by School District,"
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=business&tableId=128637&pubDate=1/30/2007

Question for Kyle Stock: the contract with the company was for $110 per hour to for software development. SO, HOW MUCH WAS PAID TO THE COMPANY??? Isn't that important?

The best quote comes from Ernest Andrade of the Digital Corridor Foundation, which was also taken for a ride: because of these events, "the foundation has pledged to only invest in companies that have an advisory board."

Now, if the CCSD would only pledge to sign contracts with the same, we might get somewhere and not be required to pay for costly lawsuits.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up!

"Burke termed a last resort: Board questions open enrollment," by Diette Courrege, The Post and Courier, Tuesday, August 15, 2006, Local and State front page.

[Should have been front-page news: "County high schools caught using Burke as dumping ground for troublemakers."]


http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=localnews&tableId=102460&pubDate=8/15/2006

As I follow the doings of CCSD, sometimes I feel as though I've fallen down the rabbit hole with Alice. The latest expose, courtesy of constituent school board 20 (that's downtown), is one of those times. Yesterday's school board meeting (which appparently wasn't as important as the Newsless Courier's front-page news on the A-Team and its finances) was a shocker--at least to me and, I expect, to most people who do not have connections with the "in" crowd.

It seems that about five years ago, the school district "opened" admissions to anyone in the county, not just downtown residents, so, according to the chief academic officer, "high-achieving" students could transfer in.

Man, there must be a lot of gullible people in Charleston County!

Well, no, actually, just some who made a pretense of academics as the reason for the "open" admissions. After all, only students who were about to be expelled from other high schools knew about this policy. Gee, I wonder how they found out. Like, the guidance counselor (or school police liaison) said to them, "Go to Burke" and you won't be expelled for ... oh, drug-dealing, pot-smoking in the johns, fighting in the cafeteria, you name it. In fact, Burke has been used as a dumping ground for students unwanted by other schools, an "open admissions" alternative school, if you will.

Would any high-achieving student (and/or his or her parents) in his right mind transfer to Burke? We all know the answer to that. And so did the people who thought up this pretense.

With reasonable certainty, I can state that, whoever came up with this scenario guaranteed to encourage all gang members, druggies, and others who belonged in alternative settings to transfer into a school already on its last legs, did not have any children (or friends that had children) at Burke High School.

How dare the constituent board 20 complain! And no one admits to knowing how many non-residents have enrolled at Burke or even whether anyone looked at transcripts and records before they did!

Obviously, I don't need to worry about running out of material to write about. YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP. WHO WOULD BELIEVE IT?

Then, as an afterthought it seems, the reporter mentioned a three-year contract of $430,000 awarded to the "executive director of the district's building program." SAY WHAT? That's over $100,000 per year, a nice chunk of change.

For what? Doesn't say. [Editors: where are you?] Aren't you as taxpayer even mildly curious?