CCSD's Delay, Linger, & Wait Policy Works

I should let Sunday's P & C article [Change Sought to Policy] speak for itself (with some added italics):

"Charleston County schools are supposed to verify the address of every student this year, but district leaders plan to ask the school board to change that requirement. The school board passed a policy in January of last year aimed at preventing parents from lying about their addresses to attend specific schools. District leaders failed to make plans to implement the policy until late last summer, so they decided to phase it in with five magnet schools."
[snip]

"The address verification policy was the board's response to downtown parents questioning addresses of certain students enrolled in Buist Academy, the only excellent-rated magnet school on the peninsula. Downtown residents accused some of the school's parents of lying about their addresses to better their children's chances of acceptance into the school."

Actually, downtown residents PROVED that some parents were lying about their addresses, but CCSD chose to ignore the facts!

"Buist Academy was one of the five schools required to do the address checks this past school year, and it was the only school that verified students' addresses in a different manner. The other four magnet schools checked students' addresses against the manner in which they came into the school." [Gee, how did that discrepancy creep in?]
[snip]
"McGinley said she would go back to the board July 21 to talk about the conflicting manner in which schools are verifying addresses to get feedback on what the board wanted to see happen."These questions are unique to Buist, and we have to investigate them," she said." [It doesn't take any imagination to guess what Gregg Meyers and his ilk want. She's hoping he has rounded up the votes.]

Too bad that Superintendent McGinley has decided to continue in lockstep with her predecessors. She could have begun a new era of trust in CCSD with a tough verification policy that would have put to rest the deserved reputation of cheaters at Buist. Think of the sham (i.e., unverifiable) lottery and inappropriately used test for entering kindergardeners as well as the address cheats. She's simply serving the interests of the "deserving" rich. Apparently, that's what "Charleston Achieving Excellence" means to her.

CCSD Superintendent Preys on Public Ignorance

What is it about "scholarship" totals that educrats like Superintendent Nancy McGinley can't comprehend? I've blogged about this idiocy previously, but McGinley's latest letter (posted on the CCSD website) brings it to mind again.

After parroting all of the usual platitudes regarding "Charleston Achieving Excellence" [sorry to nitpick, but shouldn't that be "Charleston's"? or "Charleston: Achieving Excellence"?], McGinley writes,

"Already, we are seeing results. We just got our scholarship information in, and the numbers are exceptional. CCSD seniors earned a total of $42,257,783 in scholarships in 2008. This was an increase of $5,934,282 over last year."

I may be accused of beating a dead horse here, but this is a phony-baloney number in ANY year! The number is the self-reported sum times four of all money offered to students by every school the students applied to. For example, if a student applied to Charleston Southern and was awarded a package of $8000 for the freshman year (including loans and grants) because of financial need, that $8000 was multiplied by four and $32,000 was added into McGinley's total. The "scholarship" part of this merely is that the student was accepted at Charleston Southern. Now assume that the student applied to three such schools. That would make the student's total $96,000. Sounds good, doesn't it? Of course, the student may have decided to attend Trident Tech instead, meaning that all the money awarded from those three institutions became moot. As more and more students apply to multiple schools, the "scholarship" total will rise accordingly. The poorer the students are, the faster it will go.

Of course, some of the total represents real scholarship (that is, based on academics, not financial need), but in the last thirty years or so the bulk of money awarded has been based on financial need. If a student gets into Harvard and needs a "full ride" financially, that's what he or she will get; if the same student were very wealthy, he or she would get nothing. Does that mean the wealthy student isn't a scholar?

Look, McGinley knows these details full well. She and others like her quote such numbers to prey on the ignorance of the public at large. After all, $42 million in scholarships sounds great. Of course, the present superintendent didn't start this idiocy, but she could stop it.

The Real Story on CCSD Summer School

"Enrollment dropped from about 525 students last year to 185 students this year" is the REAL story about CCSD's 2008 summer school. [See District Might Try to Eliminate Summer School to Save Money.] That's in ONE year. So what gives?

I've reached the point where I don't really put much credence in how the P & C handles stories like this one, especially the numbers they contain. For example, did the district expect to have the same numbers as in the past, or did the district's offering of not even half as many courses (11 instead of 25) in high school cause the drop? Was it in the summer of 2007 that the $100,000 overrun occurred? If so, does CCSD expect a cost overrun again this summer, or was the overrun an excuse or result of bad planning?

The article says that this "might be the last year of summer school for elementary and middle schools." CCSD's solution is to allow enrollment in the next grade while remediating the student for the previous grade. So how is the student supposed to be successful in the (presumably) more difficult subject when the student hasn't yet mastered the previous one?

And if the number of students who enrolled this summer in high school courses was much lower than the district expected, what change does THAT suggest? You got it. The number of students who failed courses needed to graduate is down. Why, that MUST be a result of the superintendent's mantra that excellence is our standard. Not.

Also, how much do these online courses cost? Are they aligned with CCSD's course offerings? Having investigated online remediation for another school several years ago, I know that these courses can vary in quality from a joke to a rigorous learning experience.

Gee, I wonder why Berkeley County and Dorchester District 2 aren't having these problems.

Forget the Economy: CCSD Board Sinks to New Low

I hate profanity. If anyone called me a bitch to my face, I'd probably slap him. My father, who as a former Marine probably knew plenty, never used profanity at any time around me when I was growing up. Arthur Ravenel, Jr., revealed to me by his choice of words to a woman that he is no Southern gentleman, but then I never thought he was. I am still offended by any profanity that I hear used by my peers and can't even imagine the duress I would need to be under to use it in the classroom. There.

That said, can we get real here?

Monday night's CCSD School Board meeting was a classic of its kind. [See New Behavior Standards for Members Proposed]. It's politics, folks. This is appeasement of our lovely, ineffective NAACP, as represented by Dot Scott. Why, if the new policy were made retroactive, Hillery Douglas himself would be in the dock! I'll support the policy when every student who calls a teacher a bitch will be sent to Murray Hill Academy or expelled. That will be a cold day in hell.

The Meyers faction is proposing to use its 5-4 majority to expell ELECTED members of the Board who oppose it, pure and simple. Ravenel not only opposes them; he has the contacts to do it effectively. [BTW, there was a time when I wouldn't have believed that I would ever defend Ravenel!] You don't really believe this is about bad language, do you? If so, please see me later about my bridge in Brooklyn.

We have yet to hear from CCSD's new attorney on the legality of the Board's ousting an elected member. Frankly, until I hear otherwise from state sources, I refuse to believe it. Even Meyers admitted that taking such action would be a "'zoo.'" Zoo? It would be a witch hunt! Can you imagine the trumped up charges that would routinely appear in attempts to get those who don't "go along to get along" with Meyers?

This is about intimidation of members who choose to disagree. The P & C is happy to go along with it. If you read the article carefully, you will see that Ravenel's original outburst concerned failure to put an item on the Board's agenda. It states, "He also told McGinley he'd have her job if she didn't put a certain item on the school board's agenda, according to McGinley's account." Our wonderful newspaper neglects to mention what that item was. Can you guess what?

It was approval of arrangements for CSMS to use the Rivers campus. If the item had not been added to that agenda, CSMS would have lost out on using the campus. See, the plot thickens.

CCSD Technology & Library Funding

While touting the latest moves by CCSD Monday, the P & C inadvertently revealed that it pays attention only to CCSD press releases, no surprise to readers of this blog! According to our local paper, anything that emerges from the publicity (i.e., Planning, Marketing, and Communications) department of CCSD could only be positive. The editors have never met a CCSD press release they didn't swallow--hook, line, and sinker. In fact, they never find it necessary to ask anyone outside of 75 Calhoun whether the district is on course or needs a few course corrections.

It remains true that the paper has stood by and watched as "them that had got" over the three decades since the district was consolidated--watched as PTA's in wealthier suburbs raised the money to provide new band uniforms, new band instruments, computers, Smartboards, even overhead projectors, watched as the disparity in equipment ballooned to the point of embarrassment. Surely, not even the parents at Charles Pinckney Elementary in Mt. Pleasant would claim that parents at Fraser Elementary downtown could replicate their 41 Smartboards if only the Fraser parents were more involved! [See Schools to Get Technology Boost]

Smartboards are an exciting, albeit expensive, new technology that may indeed advance student motivation. However, although it looks promising, its effectiveness in advancing learning remains anecdotal so far. We can be sure that if discipline is not improved in classrooms, Smartboards will be no more effective than blackboards.

Of more concern is how the technology is being financed and whether it will be fully utilized.

Any large expenditure--and at a cost of $42.5 million over five years, this one qualifies--needs to be justified in two ways. First, will the return on this investment be worth the cost? One would have to say that having equally equipped schools is worth the cost; it's not as clear that the full bells and whistles in play here are all as necessary, but perhaps CCSD is getting a good deal on the full package that justifies the extra cost. We'll never know.

Second, and equally important, is the foregone expenditure on some other aspect of CCSD. Think of it this way--going to college full-time has tuition, room, and board expenditures that we know all too well; most of us do not consider the foregone INCOME that the student does not make while he or she is a full-time student. Even adding in that foregone income may still suggest that the student should go full time in order to reap future benefits.

So, what aspect that might cost $42.5 million over five years (and over $6 million per year thereafter) is being foregone? Where is the money coming from anyway? Here's what CCSD says,

The plan will be paid for through the capital fund because this expense requires an ongoing funding stream, said Michael Bobby, district chief financial officer. A majority of the tax increase on the debt service fund is tied to these improvements, as well as those for school libraries. After five years, the plan will require about 75 percent of the $8.5 million annual amount to replace and enhance equipment.

What I get out of this is that the money will come from the capital fund that is not limited by being tied to sales tax revenues and, as far as I can tell, that is limited only by how much the Board wants to increase taxes. The district is spending $42.5 million over five years. Then CCSD will need to spend about $6.4 million every year thereafter to keep on track. I hope it's worth it.

As for full utilization--is there a teacher out there who has not had the experience of watching new technology's being underutilized because of lack of training or lack of time built in to learn to use it? Training is usually not considered a capital expense. 'Nuff said.

In regard to libraries (excuse me, media centers), I've addressed in previous blogs the ridiculous disparities that exist, especially in District 20. I do wonder about the P & C's math skills, however. According to '09 Budget Addresses Libraries, "[CCSD officials] found the district's median book age was 17 years old. The average age of collections in school libraries statewide ranges from two to 38 years, and the average age overall was 15 years, according to state education department reports."[italics mine]

Who is it--the editors or CCSD officials or the reporter--who does not know the difference between a median and an average? It is a difference!

AP Education Poll Reflects CCSD Realities

A Bill Gates-financed national AP poll on education, as reported in Saturday's P & C, actually emphasizes the concerns of CCSD parents, especially those in District 20 on the penninsula.

For example, more than half believe students are not prepared for everyday jobs or for college--echoing the concerns of Burke parents who wonder why the new technology campus can't be at Burke and why Burke gets short shrift in vocational courses.

But it's when the numbers are broken out by minority versus white that the story gets interesting. For example, the poll suggests "minority parents are more likely to believe their children are getting a better education than they received." Well, yes, especially if the parents dropped out of school earlier than their white counterparts did--it's not clear if the poll corrected for this factor. Historically, whites have higher educational attainment.

More telling is the disparity in those who rate their schools as good or excellent. Only 42 percent of minority parents agreed versus 59 percent of white parents. Was this adjusted for economic background? Let's see--could schools in poor areas be worse than those in rich areas? Are more minority parents poor? Wouldn't you love to see such a survey done in CCSD? Don't hold your breath.

Is education important to minority parents? Yes. They know education is the way up economically. That's why they consider it just as important as the economy. That's where it becomes obvious that the survey reflects District 20 and its ubiquitous failing schools.

What percentage of minority parents in District 20 would rate their schools as good or excellent? Don't make me laugh.

On a lighter note, the desire expressed in the survey for more math is being met with the Charter School for Math and Science. What an irony that the school board is fighting it!

How About That CCSD Budget, Folks!

Raid the contingency fund! What's a contingency anyway?

Sell that old real estate that's just hanging around! Next year's budget will be harder? Sell the Fraser campus for next year's budget. Sell the Rivers campus to balance the budget the following year. Sell the Charleston Progressive campus. Sell, sell, sell--cover those operating costs with sales of capital until. . .

Stoke Gregg Meyers's ego with *Meyers* provisions to the budget; he needs more self confidence!

Up those taxes on businesses! It was a forgone conclusion when the new state funding rules went into effect! Why do businesses matter anyway?

Get used to it, folks. Charleston County School District gets funded from the state sales tax on the same basis as every other school district.

Not fair, you say? There's nothing fair about a sales tax.

Why did CCSD get the short end of the stick while other districts' finances actually improved? It doesn't take a rocket scientist or accountant to figure out that CCSD was spending more per pupil than the others--and getting less in results. Now it's on a forced diet, except the Board is raiding the refrigerator.

Why Lack Details for AP Academy at Burke?

Do you think that it ever occurs to Superintendent McGinley and the rest of the staff at 75 Calhoun that more details about CCSD programs might just make them more accepted by the public that CCSD serves?

The thought occurred to me, anyway, as I read about a week-long film-making orientation at the AP Academy at Burke High School as reported in Wednesday's P & C. Oh, yes, it was publicity of a sort. However, so many details were omitted regarding the program that you wonder what the reporter had her mind on when she interviewed Juanita Middleton, the program's coordinator. Or did the reporter interview anyone?

Most of the story clearly was based on a press release, not surprisingly, given the P & C's propensity to parrot whatever the District hands it and ask no embarrassing questions. In fact, now that I look again at the short article, I do wonder if the reporter spoke to anyone. See what you think:

The Advanced Placement Academy at Burke High School kicked off orientation last week with a filmmaking workshop that ended Friday with the presentation of a film made by students titled "My Charleston."

Filmmaker Portia Cobb, currently a visiting filmmaker at College of Charleston, instructed Burke's rising ninth-graders, members of the new academy.

[snip]

"My objective is to motivate the students to explore image-making and storytelling through brief, individual autobiographical vignettes that will be edited together as a finale for the intensive five-day workshop," she said in a press release [italics mine].

[snip]

Juanita Middleton, coordinator of the AP Academy, also appeared in the film [italics mine] to talk about her belief in God and in her students.

Middleton said she faces skepticism and criticism of the academy which, beginning next school year, will offer rigorous advanced placement and honors courses to prepare participating students for college.

Is she worried about the success of the program?

Middleton responded with confidence:

"I'm not worried about it. I never worry. I just do," she said.

Was that an interview or a record of what Middleton said in the film? Of course, reporters use press releases all the time. However, it would be nice if the article had teased us with a few facts--such as why orientation took place in June, whether other activities are planned for the summer, how many students participated in the orientation, etc., especially if CCSD plans to build community support for what promises to be a difficult new venture. The last time we heard from CCSD on the subject of its AP Academy in May it had recruited 27 for the 100 spaces allotted. Did the reporter know that?

See for yourself: Burke's AP Academy Starts with Filmmaking Workshop.

Moving on Down the Road

A brief (we hope) hiatus will occur as we pack up the computer and move down the road about two miles. If Comcast keeps its promises, we'll be back in business by Friday. You're welcome to use this posting as an open thread to comment on various problems with CCSD and its Board.

More Nonsense from the NAACP and CCSD

Monday's CCSD Board meeting was a classic--a classic satire on school board meetings.

• Nelson Rivers III, field director and Burke High School graduate, showed up to prove that he doesn't know what's happening in District 20 these days.
  
• Academic Magnet parents showed up to protest the potential deflation of the Magnet's effectiveness when combined with the School of the Arts.
  
• Toya Green's absence (is there some reason she couldn't have voted by phone also?) guaranteed that the proposed budget for next year would not be passed.
  
• The Board refused to renew the charter for James Island High School.
  
• Hillery Douglas pretended he didn't know that, as chairman, he needed to sign the Board's approval (from its April meeting) for CSMS to use the Rivers campus.

Meanwhile, the ground is being prepared for the construction of the combined Academic Magnet and School of the Arts off Enterprise Avenue in North Charleston, now that the Special Day School has been completed. Has the public ever seen the final plans on that building? Has anyone? Has any traffic study been done? Where will the entrance to this "gi-normous" school be, off Enterprise or Montague? What is this, a state secret?

Jim Rex, Where's the Other 22 Percent?

Could it be true that South Carolina at last has begun its slow climb up from the bottom of the states with its on-time graduation rates? So says a new Education Week study that will be featured in Thursday's P & C. Actually, what the calculations of the study show is that South Carolina improved from a 54 percent graduation rate to a 55 percent rate.

Think of it: we beat out Nevada, New Mexico, and Louisiana! What losers they! We only lost 158 students from this year's graduating class every day of the last four school years.

Don't you wonder what percentage of those dropped out of CCSD high schools? Don't you wonder what the on-time graduation rate for CCSD is? Well, that's a secret that is guaranteed to remain right up there with what ever happened to Jimmy Hoffa.

Oh, CCSD keeps records all right, but whatever they report needs to be adjusted for the fudge factor. You see, for the same year that the study calculated a 55 percent rate, South Carolina REPORTED a 77 percent graduation rate. One could argue that some students take more than four years to graduate, but that would hardly begin to explain the 22 percent wishful-thinking discrepancy.

Time to get real.

Lipstick on a Pig: North Charleston's Middle Schools

Question: If you had the option to send your own children to a better-performing school, would you take it? Would you decide that your child's education is too important to experiment with based on promises from CCSD's administrators? Or would you take the chance that disciplinary and academic conditions in the failing school your child is slated to attend have changed? See Thursday's North Charleston Schools Courting Students.

For most of us, that's what's known as a "no-brainer."

NCLB in this case is working quite effectively! Parents who care are opting out of Brentwood, Alice Birney, and Morningside Middle Schools in North Charleston because, because--they can! Now ordinary, middle-to-lower-income parents have the choice that richer parents have opted for all along. How American!

The P & C doesn't like this situation, and neither does CCSD. Surprised?

In the story splashed across the front of Thursday's local section, the reporter makes no mention of NCLB. If you weren't paying attention to CCSD's situation, you might have assumed that students were going elsewhere in the district on a whim! Courrege's lead says, "Hundreds of North Charleston children opt to go to middle schools elsewhere in the district rather than trying the ones in their neighborhoods." The REST OF THE STORY appears in the back pages.

According to Patricia Yandle of the District office, "Each of the three North Charleston middle schools has at least 95 students who plan to transfer to other higher-performing middle schools next school year under the federal No Child Left Behind law. . . . Most of those students were incoming sixth-graders." Of course, the schools' principals want this cadre of parents to stay. These would be the most involved in their children's education. ALMOST makes you feel sorry for them.

However, changing "perceptions" about these schools is NOT what is needed. REAL change is! And it is happening, just too slowly for these parents. Losing students like these to other schools is causing CCSD to attempt change, as can be seen from the list of "goodies" held out to the parents like an olive branch--technology, arts-infusion, single-sex core classes. Does anyone believe these attempts would have been made without the pressure of NCLB?

When the so-called "rumors" about these schools stop, when their failing status under NCLB changes, THEN these students will return. Well, not these students. By then these will have graduated from other schools that are not failing.

To Draw Attention from CCSD Board's Failures

The P & C is at it again. And why not? No news source in the Lowcountry will counter its propaganda. Well, The Chronicle might, but unfortunately it doesn't have much clout.

So it is that once again the local rag finds Arthur Ravenel's comments of a month ago to be front page news, complete with Board Chairman Douglas's sanctimonious posturing, while important new information gets buried in the back pages. Instead of headlining Ravenel's Comments Denounced, the news should have read " CCSD Finally Votes to Revoke SeaIslands Charter." But then the focus would have been on the Board's AND the Superintendent's failures instead of Ravenel's.

Let's not forget who bear the responsibility for encouraging this charter school in the first place.

One way that McGinley and her cronies could build a bit of "street cred" is to admit their mistakes. Why, if they like, they can even say "Mistakes were made," not naming themselves.

Not going to happen.

CCSD Invents Reverse Busing

Knowing the results of CCSD's methods over the last 30 years or so, one must be reminded of the innocently ominous tone of Sylvia Plath's "Mushrooms." In such a way has CCSD, with the full complicity of its school board, but not that of its District 20 constituent board, created de facto segregated schools on the Charleston penninsula.

In fact, under the radar CCSD has invented REVERSE BUSING, in a stunning sleight of hand that will NEVER be covered by the Post and Courier and could not have been foreseen by the activist judges that mandated busing for integration during the seventies and eighties in places such as Charlotte.

Overnight, very
Whitely, discreetly,
Very quietly

Our toes, our noses
Take hold on the loam,
Acquire the air.

Nobody sees us,
Stops us, betrays us;
The small grains make room.
.......................................
So many of us!
So many of us!

So many of us, indeed, simply assume that the population of District 20's schools merely reflects the demographics of the penninsula's population. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Thanks to the legwork and brainwork of some concerned District 20 residents, the following statistics now make clear that very gradually over the course of school year after school year CCSD has participated knowingly in re-segregating the downtown schools. This while erstwhile civil rights attorney Gregg Meyers sits on its school board.

The estimates and numbers below are updated to 2006. The information used comes from US Census data, SC Department of Education data, and public data from CCSD sources. It seems unlikely that the situation has changed dramatically in the last two years.

The bottom line is this:

• For the approximately 5,000 seats in District 20 schools, there are about 5,000 school age children (PK thru 12) living in District 20.
• Roughly 1200 of these children live south of Calhoun Street.
  
• The racial make up of the population of District 20 is approximately 51% Black, 48% White and 1% "other."
• As recently as 2006 District 20 had an enrollment of 3100 students.
• Of the 3100 students attending District 20 schools in 2005-06, only 2100 students were residents of District 20.
• Nearly 1,000 students attended District 20 schools but resided outside of District 20.

Okay, Buist may account for some, but not for more than 300.

• Approximately 1200 District 20 residents attended CCSD schools outside of District 20.

Why? That's nearly one-third of District 20 school-age residents, isn't it?

• Nearly 1700 District 20 students attended either a non-CCSD school or were home schooled in 2005-06.

We don't need to ask why for that.

• At least a third of District 20's nine schools, including its only high school, had between 30% and 80% of those school enrollments made up of non-District 20 residents.
• From the information available each of the five District 20 elementary schools draw more than half of their enrollment from outside of their specific attendance zones.
• At least 1200 students, and possibly as many as 2500, annually enroll or withdraw from a District 20 attendance zone to which they have not been assigned.
  
• The vast majority of these out-of-zone school transfers relating to District 20 students and schools appear to have been allowed without anyone informing the District 20 Board.
  
• The assumption is that at least 1200 students annually attend a District 20 school without the submission of an appropriate transfer request being processed by the District 20 Board as required by law.

Worried about saving on gasoline? Does anyone believe that CCSD doesn't bus these students into and off the penninsula every day?

Busing in the service of segregation. I submit that is against the law. Is anyone paying attention?

P & C Takes Sides in CCSD Dispute

Splashed all over the front of the P & C Friday morning was one of the most important stories to come out of CCSD this year! At least it must have been to receive the place of honor above the fold. So, was this startling information about the school district banner news about its achievements or even its failures?

Of course not. It was about a spat among CCSD school board members facilitated by employees of 75 Calhoun. [See Threats to McGinley's Job Alleged ].

Lost in the explosion about "he said--she said" was the reason for the anger. Found in the detritus was a stick to beat members of the school board (mainly Arthur Ravenel, Jr.) who don't take directives from Gregg Meyers et al. Seizing the chance to overreact in an election year, Douglas and his toadies made noises about changing the policies of the Board so that language might be a cause for public censure: "A board member who violates the code could face public discipline."

Spare us the sanctimonious simpers. No one excuses foul language, not even Arthur Ravenel, Jr., as it seems from his later TV interview today, and his explosion of temper was truly uncalled for, for the person who took the agreement with the Charter School for Math and Science to use the Rivers building off the Board's agenda was not present. In fact, no one has said who took it off, so we must read the tea leaves. Judging from remarks regarding the Superintendent, it must have been McGinley.

Needless to say, the P &C ignored the issue, hoping not to pick at the scab that has formed over the ongoing dispute between organizers of CSMS and the school board, which is seething quietly over its inability to stop CSMS's fulfillment. That continues to be the real story.

Oh, and one other observation. Courrege apparently parrots whatever Meyers et al say to her. How else to explain the statement that, "Cook and Toler frequently vote with Ravenel on controversial issues"? That statement was, of course, made to cast doubt on their neutrality in the dispute. Instead, it reveals the reporter's ignorance about the relationship between Cook and Ravenel.

May we get on to the topic at hand--when IS the CCSD board going to grapple with the CSMS agreement? When hell freezes over?

"New" Memminger Auditorium: Dream or Nightmare?

It looks like a great space. No doubt it has the latest equipment. But for some residents of CCSD, the refurbished Memminger Auditorium that opens with Spoleto this week is a sad reminder of what might have been. [See Refurbished Memminger 'Like a Good Dream'].

What a loss to the school district! And for what? A few parking spaces? Let's face it. Those in control at 75 Calhoun won't be satisfied until the space now occupied by Memminger Elementary no longer belongs to the district either. It's too valuable a property to dedicate to school children, no matter how many years the land has served in that capacity.

After all, what's tradition in a city like Charleston?

Nexsen Pruet, Memminger, and Buttered Bread

Hooray for Memminger Elementary School! It has been discovered by the Nexsen Pruet Law Firm. [See Law Firm Discovers School Neighbor.] According to the May 12th article in the P & C,

"Memminger Elementary needed 280 sharpened pencils, 140 water bottles, yogurt and peppermints for the upcoming PACT test. The school wanted to put on a science fair later this month and needed display boards and ribbons for the winners. The administration wanted to recognize its volunteers for their hard work this year with a picnic. And there was something else Memminger was in dire need of.

"One thing we were in desperate need of is a (public addess) system, because sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't," said Principal Diane Ross.

"The answer to their prayers was right down the street, less than half a mile away.

"Ric Tapp, one of the litigation partners at Nexsen Pruet, told student support specialist Leah Hambright and Memminger's parent educator Maurice Johnson that he thought people who worked at his firm would be interested in helping the elementary school reach some of its educational goals. Johnson and Hambright put together a successful presentation for several lawyers, and about a week later, they had everything on the wish list.

"When these two gave their presentation... we had seasoned lawyers in tears," said Chris Ogiba, a lawyer at the firm.

[snip]

"Ogiba said many of his co-workers didn't know that Memminger was such a close neighbor, but now he feels the relationship between the school and the firm will only strengthen.

"Everyone [at the firm] wanted to make sure this is just the beginning," he said. "We're in it for the long haul. ... We're neighbors."

Everyone has a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling now, right?? That was on May 12th.

Five days later, CCSD announced that it had finally hired its promised in-house lawyer. The cynical among us know what's coming next, don't we?

"John Emerson has been hired as the district's new staff attorney. Emerson practices in Nexsen Pruet's Columbia office as a part of the employment and labor law group and the business litigation group."

Frankly, I'm glad to see that someone at Nexsen Pruet knew which side its bread was buttered on and thought it wise to help Memminger out.

Coincidence, you say? Sure, just about as much of a coincidence as the resignation of Rusty Thomas the day before the fire report came out.

Note: Thanks to a sharp-eyed reader for putting two and two together for me. As this person has said so succinctly,

One would think that a law firm as rich and powerful as this one and with designs on taking over the CCSD contract would have been (a.) less obvious in the choice of its beneficiary; (b.) more generous so as not to look "niggardly;" (c.) careful to avoid the appearance that it has been oblivious to Memminger's plight for over forty years; and (d.) gone the extra step of setting up a Non-profit to provide for continuing donations to and fund-raising for this school.

Of course, the money could have been donated to the school anonymously through http://www.donorschoose.org rather than directly to the school in a public manner. But then Nexen, Pruet would not have received the free publicity.

The Stupidity View of the Post and Courier

It's not rocket science.

The lead paragraph (or two) of a news article should mention who, what, where, when, why, and how, if those facts are known. The same is true of any writing that seeks to inform. Do you remember when you were first introduced to the "5 W's and an H"? I don't either, but I know it was early in high school.

So you must ask yourself, what's wrong with the Newsless aka Post and Courier? In Wednesday's edition an article about Horizon Middle Academy (who) informed the public that this charter school will not open its doors (what) next fall (when) because of lack of funding (why) caused by its approval through the SC Public Charter School District instead of through CCSD (how).

Oh, did I leave something out?

You mean WHERE? WHERE? [See Opening Farther Out on Horizon]

Yes, the reporter left out the fifth "W" because , I suppose, if you have to ask, you can't afford to know this information.

And the editors (they still do edit, don't they?) didn't care or didn't catch it or assumed that anyone reading the P & C lacked the same amount of curiosity that the editors did.

Okay, enough of being cute. It's on Johns Island and is being organized as an alternative to Haut Gap Middle School. I know because I had to look it up. So many potential charters have been announced in the last year that I couldn't remember which one Horizon was either.

If I believed in the conspiracy view of history (which I don't), I would assume that the P & C didn't want to give Horizon any more publicity than it was forced to and figured that saying where the school would be located would only encourage those misguided parents to seek out Horizon in place of sending their children to a failing school.

No, I believe in the stupidity view of history. According to that view, what others chalk up to conspiracy is easily explained by the usual incompetency and imbecility.

Remember, we are talking about the P & C.

CEN's Butzon Butts in on Charter School Rent

Don't you just love the edu-blob? It pretends to have the best interests of students at heart, when in fact it has its OWN interests at heart. Take Jon Butzon, of the Charleston Education Network, a Riley and Chamber-of-Commerce front--please take him!

Monday's P & C's op-ed page has a message from Butzon: The sky is falling in CCSD. Run for your life.

Butzon tries to link CCSD's financial woes to its failure to charge rent to the new Charter School for Math and Science. For example,

"Locally sponsored charter schools are already a financial albatross for school districts. When charter school proponents complain about the slow growth of charter schools in South Carolina, they typically attribute that slow growth to anti-charter sentiments among educators and school boards. But as the law is currently written, having charter schools is a financial disincentive for school boards."

What you really mean, Jon, is that school boards lose control of the money that goes to those students. I agree it's a financial disincentive but only because many on the school board have other agendas than the best interests of the students involved. You and I both know that the amount of money alloted per student in the district does not change--only who handles it.

More to the point, why should the Charleston Education Network get a chair at the table? Who elected it to decide what policies the district should have about anything? Why do so many friends of Riley and Democratic activists sit on the committee? What qualifies Jon Butzon to sound off on the finances of the district and its funding? Let's see his credentials.

As I inquired in a posting last July 27th,

Who calls the shots in this unwieldy committee of 26?
Who decides what policies to push?
Where does more than $92,000 in "public support"[as of 3 years ago] come from?
What are Butzon's qualifications for sitting in on CCSD meetings?
Why does CCSD list CEN under "parent" organizations?

Well, Jon? Why did CEN leave its offices at the Citadel? Why is it that on CEN's website not a single member of the committee is listed under "Who We Are"?

Don't you just love it?

Lead Article's Unanswered Questions

It has a front-page banner headline above the fold, so why didn't the editor insist that the reporter provide enough information for the story or at least ask more questions?

Yes, I'm referring to Friday's P & C article, Caught Handing Out $100s at School.

In fact, this Brian Hicks article raises so many unanswered questions, maybe it's meant as a teaser for Saturday's paper? One can only hope.

Let's look at what we've been given here. Two 13-year-olds. Of course, we aren't allowed to know where they live or anything about them except that they attend C.E. Williams Middle School.

Well, if they don't live IN Parkdale, how did they get there? It's very unlikely that they walked or even bicycled, unless you assume that both come from well-off, middle-class families. That's the neighborhood. If you look at the location of the house on the Intra-coastal Waterway, your suspicion that someone older was involved may also rise.

Then, there's the question of how they targeted this particular house. Randomly? That seems unlikely. Why did the owners not even know they'd been burgled. Isn't that a bit odd? If these boys were such dolts that they got caught for flashing around their money, would they also clean up after themselves? Leave the place spotless? Something doesn't add up.

And, dare I say, what about their parents? The article makes NO mention of them at all. While I can believe that one boy's parents might not have known about the money, it defies the odds that BOTH sets of parents were unaware of what had transpired. One hopes that the police are thinking along similar lines.

C.E. Williams gave them a week's suspension for bringing stolen property onto school grounds. Pray tell, what is the school's policy for students charged with burglary? A week's suspension? What is CCSD's discipline school used for, anyway? Murderers?

Which brings me to my final question. Why can't the State of South Carolina have a law that holds parents responsible for the crimes of underage criminals? On a sliding scale. Say, if the students had been eight years old, the parents would be held 75 percent responsible, while for 13 year olds, only 50 percent responsible?

Think about it. 13-year-old boys. Burglary. Flashing the cash. Back in school studying for the PACT.