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.

Be Afraid, Fraser Elementary, Very Afraid

CCSD Board member Gregg Meyers began to prepare the public for school closings Monday night by revealing part of his hand at the scheduled Trustees meeting. Schools will be closed, and their properties sold off to the highest bidder and/or friend of Joe Riley. That sale will balance the budget for a year-to-be-named down the road.

That brings us to Fraser Elementary, the school that didn't even merit its own principal during the 2007-08 school year. Is there anyone so naive as to think that the goal of 75 Calhoun is NOT to merge Fraser with Sanders-Clyde and sell the Fraser property for development? If so, that person probably doesn't read this blog! Now, if this betrayal were on the horizon in Mt. Pleasant, parents would rise up in droves to keep their neighborhood school. Meyers knows he can pick on Fraser because its parents are poorer and less well-connected. They will rise up, but can they prevail? How suave.

You see, Superintendent McGinley and her cronies at 75 Calhoun, as instructed by Meyers and his toadies on the Board, plan for ONE ALL-BLACK elementary school on the peninsula--Sanders-Clyde. Never mind that elementary students learn better in smaller "learning communities." Never mind that their projections for student enrollment are based on "funny" numbers. McGinley and Meyers can't even see the differences between the student bodies at the two schools. Even after all these years, McGinley still doesn't understand the dynamics of CCSD's neighborhoods--just look at her misidentification of the neighborhood surrounding St. Andrew's Elementary. Meyers knows but doesn't care. After all, Buist and the Academic Magnet took care of HIS children.

Why aren't we hearing from the NAACP on this issue? Hmm.

Let's Hear NAACP's Scott on Sea Islands Failure

Would you believe that Charleston's chapter of the NAACP is now calling for Governor Sanford to remove Arthur Ravenel, Jr., from the CCSD Board of Trustees over Ravenel's use of language? As reported by local TV stations, Dot Scott is at it again.

Some things that don't bother Scott and the other officers of the NAACP:

• de facto segregated schools in District 20 (on the peninsula);
  
• under-the-radar busing of white students out of District 20 and black students in to make segregation possible;
  
• the CCSD Superintendent's foray into charter schools as part of changing Murray Hill Academy represented by the monumental and expensive failure of Sea Islands YouthBuild;
  
• the failure of CCSD to provide programs at Burke High School desired by its parents;
• overloading of resources on Buist Academy as a magnet school while withholding same from Charleston Progressive Academy, an almost all-black magnet school only two blocks away; etc.

How could Ravenel's remarks possibly be as damaging to CCSD as these failures? It's all politics, folks. As long as the majority on the CCSD board aligns itself with Dot Scott, we can expect more of the same.

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.

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?

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 Legal Costs Fiasco

$625,000 spent in an eight-month period on legal bills.

Let's see. At this rate CCSD will dole out something approaching a million dollars for attorney fees during this school year. Is anyone crying, "Stop! Hold! Enough"? Yes, but it's not 75 Calhoun. It's Arthur Ravenel, Jr., who has questioned the ballooning costs of the district's arrangement with Alice Paylor's law firm. In one of her most it-goes-without-saying statements so far, Superintendent McGinley has pointed out that "every call the district makes to its legal counsel is billed." Duh.

What could be costing so many hours' worth of Alice Paylor's time? Why, that would be

• personnel issues (hmm),
• construction contracts (mm-hmm),
• special education (huh?), and
• charter schools (oh! yes, of course).

That's Nancy McGinley's story and she's sticking to it.
([See Charleston Schools Looking to Hire Attorney.]

So, why did CCSD cut out the position of staff attorney "years ago"? Whose boondoggle is this? Is CCSD getting its money's worth? Or are its actions so ill-advised that it will always cost this much to defend them in court?

CCSD: Themes as Sleight of Word

To wax philosophical--what is a "magnet" school?

While it might seem a silly question to those of you unfamiliar with the sleight of word performed regularly by CCSD, it's no small matter to the thousands of students who must attend CCSD's failing schools. CCSD prides itself on never having defined what it means by "magnet"--just ask Board member Gregg Meyers or supporters of Charleston Progressive Academy! A definition might actually force the district to admit that some of its "magnets" are more equal than others. According to Public School Review [see What Is a Magnet School], magnet schools receive extra funding. As Charleston Progressive knows only too well, one can be a magnet in CCSD without any such promise or follow through. Then there's Buist.

Now Superintendent Nancy McGinley plans to muddy the murky waters even further by encouraging "themes" to create "mini-magnets" in 11 failing elementary schools. McGinley and her mouthpiece, Diette Courrege, the reporter who wrote about the themed schools in Friday's P & C, suggest that somehow the situation of these 11 themed schools is analogous to that of the St. Andrews School of Math and Science. [See 11 Schools to Pursue Themes ]

Only to someone who doesn't know Charleston all that well!

According to native Pennsylvanian McGinley, "St. Andrews was a struggling, traditional neighborhood school, but it has been in high demand since it began accepting students from across the county and added the math and science focus." Struggling? Does she really think that the student population of that school's attendance area resembles the 11 schools she has in mind to emulate it? What planet is she on? Furthermore, St. Andrews has suffered an attendance "surplus" ever since previous Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson threw a sop to vociferious parents whose children did not get into Buist by dumping them wholesale at St. Andrews [hence last year's trailer fiasco].

Also, "each school will have a district staff member assigned to them [sic] to provide support." Yes, we can imagine what that will consist of. How about "watchdog"?

Sometimes it seems as though CCSD won't be happy until every student in the county is bused to a school in another attendance zone. Can themes alone work here to improve these schools academically and INTEGRATE them? Of course not. Is McGinley hoping that parents who live in the failing schools' attendance zones but send their children elsewhere will return? Let's not kid ourselves that a theme will convince them.

How about discipline?

CCSD Budget: Do Board Members Really Know?

" The Perfect Storm." The 2009 CCSD school budget has mandated obligations--such as increments in teacher salaries--and other expected operating increases, along with decreased revenues.

Those of you who have followed the progress of CCSD Superintendent McGinley's series of budget forums, attended one or more of them, and/or viewed the pertinent videos on the CCSD website know that those presentations have been long on promises and short on details. McGinley has been promising the impossible (an excellent education for every child next year! We wish!) while preparing the public for serious cuts to programs.

Does the School Board get a copy of a line-item budget for discussion? Does CCSD's Board of Trustees have any more details of the budget than the general outline doled out to the public?

Well, if they don't, they are operating in the dark, apparently the atmosphere that has been preferred by 75 Calhoun.

How about some questions to clarify the elements of the "storm":

• What was the total budgeted expenditure for each of the last 5 years?
  
• What was the total number of students served for each of the last five years?
  
• What were the total revenues from "local" sources for each of the last 5 years?
• What were the lump sums for these from all other sources, including "state," "federal," and "all others" for each of those years?
• Show all the estimates for the same figures for the coming year, taking care to reflect or explain any "adjustments" for things like non-typical "losses," "gains," or changes in the law such as "property tax relief."

Is that really too much to ask, especially for elected board members who vote on the budget?

CCSD Alert: Principal Suspended

Too late for Saturday's paper (naturally), CCSD announced the indefinite suspension with pay of Eric Vernold, the principal of North Charleston High School. According to News Channel 4, it's over a "personnel" issue. Some details will follow presumably at Monday night's School Board meeting.

According to the P & C's on-line version,

"Schools Superintendent Nancy McGinley said it was a personnel issue and that she could not comment further on the circumstances of his leave.

School officials are doing an investigation, and an assistant principal is temporarily charge of the school, she said. She hoped to have more resolution to the situation by Tuesday.

Vernold was in his first year as principal at North Charleston High."

North Charleston High School started this school year without a principal because McGinley failed to replace David Colwell, its previous successful two-year principal (who had also worked at the school the previous 18 years), after Colwell took an out-of-state job. We hope he didn't leave because of an unfriendly attitude on behalf of 75 Calhoun! The school was also short of two assistant principals in August! Why?

Vernold replaced Colwell in October in the midst of a complete breakdown of discipline at the school. We could argue that waiting until then for a permanent principal was not the wisest choice on McGinley's part. Supposedly, Vernold's experience in a rural high school in upstate New York made him qualified for the job.

I always wondered why.

Budget Storm?: CCSD Transparency Needed

A "Perfect Storm" of a budget process this year for the Charleston County School District, at least according to its superintendent? How about a Perfect Opportunity?

In coming weeks we will begin to hear about what must be cut from CCSD's operating budget. No one will like it. Superintendent McGinley has already prepared the way with her budget "forums" in various parts of the district.

Needless to say, this process has been long on promising an "excellent" education for every child in the district, and short on details of how this miracle will be accomplished next year for the first time ever! The video of McGinley and the Power Point presentation on the CCSD website have little detail beyond stating that we will have less to spend and more bills to pay in 2009. These public "forums" appear to have been designed to be as nonspecific as possible while meeting the minimum requirements for public hearings. Why hasn't the School Board pointed out to McGinley how misleading and ultimately undermining of public confidence such a process is?

No one in the community will trust the budget process until CCSD's expenditures are transparent. Here is CCSD's opportunity to begin regaining trust by starting, as a reader has suggested, with a truly independent forensic audit of the entire financial operation. Not only does the District have the need, it's the perfect time with a new Chief Financial Officer just come on board.

Several years ago the last one, limited just to cell-phone usage, saved about a million dollars in the first year by plugging the holes in the system allowing expensive and duplicate contracts while being unable to prevent abuse of the equipment by some CCSD employees.

Here's the opportunity to take the same approach with the bus system, food services, concessions, facilities management, copy equipment, etc. CCSD could save many times annually what it recovered on the cell-phone system.

A good forensic auditor wouldn't cost CCSD a dime. The auditor's work can be paid for by a reasonable and relatively small percentage of whatever money it actually recovers for CCSD and whatever is documented as saving the district in the first year after it identifies measurable waste and how to stop it.

Okay, so that won't solve this year's problems. It's a start.

Principal Likes Lack of Parental Contact?

Somehow, I don't believe that Alice Birney Middle School's new principal had quite the above message in mind when she was interviewed by the P & C's reporter for Monday's article. Nevertheless, that is the gist of her delight in being able to pursue academics instead of answering to parents all day at her previous school, Cario Middle. [See Birney principal relishes tough assignment ]

According to the article

"[Carol] Beckmann-Bartlett spends more time doing what she wants to as a principal at Birney. She's able to focus on her responsibility of leading instruction.

At Cario, constant distractions pulled her away from academic work, such as parents who would demand to talk to the principal and not anyone else. If those parents had been willing to talk to the appropriate staff person at the school, their problems could've been resolved in five minutes versus the hour that it would eat up of Beckmann-Bartlett's time, she said. Entire days would pass in which she did not have a conversation about academics.

At Birney, parents respect the chain of command, which enables Beckmann-Bartlett to focus on instruction. "

Let me get this right. The district wants parents to be more involved with their children's education; however, if that involvement means that parents want to speak to the principal, that involvement is NOT wanted. Also, parents in wealthy districts, such as Cario, don't "respect the chain of command," but poorer parents do. Are you smiling, reader?

Certainly, everyone wishes Ms. Beckmann-Bartlett success in leading Alice Birney and its teachers. One wonders, however, how this particular principal came to the attention of the P & C. It's not too far a leap to assume that CCSD invited this interview in its campaign for CCSD teachers to voluntarily move from successful to failing schools.

It's also not too far-fetched to assume that Ms. Beckmann-Bartlett is following a game plan set up by Superintendent McGinley. You see, her transfer to a problem school, turning it around (or at least improving its performance), and then applying to the Broad Foundation for a fellowship to be trained as an "urban" principal is exactly the path blazed by McGinley in Philadelphia.

The article also touts how discipline is handled at Alice Birney.

The way Birney teachers handle discipline offenses is one example. They take a team approach in dealing with misbehavior and recommend consequences. In most schools, one teacher refers a student to school administrators, who decide what to do. Although Birney's process takes more time, it limits emotional recommendations from teachers and enables deeper discussions about ways to better handle students, Beckmann-Bartlett said.

I wasn't aware that this school is known for its good discipline. Is it?

Chickens So Predictably Roosting Everywhere

Changes in funding of school operating costs from local property taxes to increases in the sales tax, etc., were touted everywhere in 2006 as the answer to all problems. Some of us, even in the midst of all that hullabaloo said, "Yeah, right."

Now, even the most vociferous proponents of this change are beginning to see its serious consequences. For example, why is CCSD Superintendent Nancy McGinley touring the district explaining a projected $23 million shortfall in the school budget? Because under the new taxing rules, CCSD loses out to districts that are poorer. Duh. Predictable. Years ago California fooled around with property tax caps, and its stellar school system tanked as a result. We're not even stellar.

The P &C has finally recognized the unintended consequences of the new laws. According to Monday's business section,

"There was such a groundswell of support for property tax reform, it was hard for a legislator to get in the way and ask what the long-term effects are going to be," said Otis Rawl, vice president of public policy for the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce.

But the bill's consequences are becoming clear as county reassessment offices start sifting through last year's sales to figure out the new assessments. Charleston County Deputy Assessor Bobby Cale estimates that the prices of properties were about 45 percent higher than the appraised value in late 2003, when his office last gathered assessment data.

What that means is, on average, properties sold in 2007 will have a taxable value 45 percent higher than the previous owners paid.

As a result, the new system discourages the purchase of real estate, and not just for buyers who are new to South Carolina, said Nick Kremydas, president of the South Carolina Association of Realtors. Most people move every seven years, and most homes in South Carolina are sold to people who already live in the state, he noted.

"Fifteen or 20 years into the future of this, it would be a huge deterrent from moving out of a home because it might be more expensive to buy a smaller home," Kremydas said.

Lee Walton over at the blog Charleston Watch has a few good comments on the overall effects of the 2006 legislation:

Growing tax revolt pressure in locations with skyrocketing property values has led to numerous attempts to curb property tax increases by substituting various forms of regressive sales tax reforms, often coupled with homestead property tax and food sales tax exemption provisions. Invariably, such hybrid taxing policies punish the poor, the young and upwardly mobile, businesses, commercial property owners, new homeowners, and trap retirees who’d like to sell their homes. . . .

All sales taxes are regressive – poorer people and those on limited or fixed incomes pay a larger percentage of their income in sales tax than more wealthy residents. As sales taxes are substituted for property taxes, the tax burden shifts further downward to the less affluent. This regressive imbalance is especially evident in localities where some foods, medicines and utilities are subject to increasing state and local sales taxes. A 1999 North Carolina study by Gardner found that an increase in sales taxes burdened the poorest 20% six times more than the wealthiest 1%. . . .

[A current legislative] bill would eliminate property taxes altogether on “homesteads” for homeowners 65 and older and eliminate 28-30% of the current property tax of all 4% and 6% properties – all for just another 1% increase in state sales tax. The likely result of this ill-conceived action would be the demise of the middle-class, a quantum impact upon the already struggling poor, and old-timers trapped in their homes until the end of their days.

Well said, Lee. I hope someone's paying attention.

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?

Two Comments on CCSD Discipline Study

From the ivory tower:

Janet Rose, executive director of assessment and accountability for Charleston County schools: "The behavior can be linked to students' culture and home lives. . . . Children who grow up in a rough neighborhood likely are going to be rougher students. . . . Some teachers might not be culturally sensitive to students' behavior and they classify it as 'misbehavior."

Calling Elizabeth Kandrac. . . . Calling Elizabeth Kandrac. . . .
This attitude got CCSD into trouble and on the losing end of a lawsuit.

From the front lines:

Kevin Smith, assistant principal at Morningside Middle School in North Charleston: "Students need to be taught and shown what it looks like to behave in an appropriate way at school, and teachers need to be able to understand that not all students have the same behavior norms, he said."

How about having Janet Rose volunteer for McGinley's pet project to teach in one of CCSD's failing schools? What if it were a "voluntary" requirement at 75 Calhoun to give three years of service at one of those schools?

What? These administrators aren't qualified to do that? Then why are they making policy for the school district?

Why, Thank You, P & C! How Kind of You

I wonder when the editors of the P & C realized that their investigation into disparities in discipline between black and white students would force them to publish a list of the CCSD schools that are de facto segregated. My guess is, too far into the process to turn back.

[See Statistical Analysis for Sunday's article.]

Manigault must be on his way to the hospital with a heart attack after seeing CCSD's List of Shame published, especially as the comparable lists for Berkeley and Dorchester 2 were so short.

Statistics. In the course of the investigation, schools that had fewer than 40 black or 40 white students were eliminated from analysis. According to a companion article on the statistical methods used,

"The sample size eliminated nearly half, or 37 of 82, of the schools or programs from analysis in Charleston County. Students in three programs — the Special Day School, Septima P. Clark Corporate Academy and Montessori Community School — were counted separate from any school, which led to Charleston having 82 different schools rather than 79.

Politano said [. . . ] In Charleston, 30 of the schools had fewer than 20 students who were in the school's racial minority, and 22 of the excluded schools had fewer than 10 students in the racial minority." [italics mine]

No surprise to frequent readers of this blog. Did any schools in District 20 (besides Buist) make the cut? See for yourself.

The List of Shame: SCHOOLS ELIMINATED FROM ANALYSIS

Berkeley:

Cainhoy Elementary/Middle, J.K. Gourdin Elementary, St. Stephen Middle

Charleston:

Baptist Hill High, C.C. Blaney Elementary, Brentwood Middle, Burke High, Edmund A. Burns Elementary, Charleston Development Academy, Charleston Progressive Academy, Chicora Elementary, Septima P. Clark Corporate Academy, Matilda F. Dunston Elementary, East Cooper Montessori Charter, Wilmot J. Fraser Elementary, Edith Frierson Elementary, Garrett Academy, Haut Gap Middle, Malcolm Hursey Elementary, James Simons Elementary, Jane Edwards Elementary, Lincoln High, Mary Ford Elementary, McClellanville Middle, Memminger Elementary, Military Magnet Academy, Minnie Hughes Elementary, Julian Mitchell Elementary, Montessori Community, Mount Pleasant Academy, Mt. Zion Elementary, Murray-LaSaine Elementary, R.D. Schroder Middle, Sanders-Clyde Elementary, Special Day School, St. James-Santee Elementary, St. Johns High, Sullivan's Island Elementary, Susan G. Boykin Academy, Greg Mathis Charter High

Dorchester District 2: None

If housing patterns in Charleston County really were this segregated, the list wouldn't be so shameful. Contemplate where Memminger Elementary is located, for example.

CCSD Teacher Coaches: Another Failed Idea

Sometimes you wonder--what were they thinking? Then you remember, they probably weren't thinking at all. They were simply responding to stimuli from NCLB to get those failing schools up to standards.

What else would explain taking more than 60 experienced teachers out of the classroom to make the lives of teachers IN the classroom more difficult by increasing the paper workload? Or assigning individual teacher coaches to "coach" entire faculties of larger schools? Or asking teacher coaches to "coach" outside of their academic areas?

The answer, of course, is that these *bright* ideas come from those administrators who have spent little, if any, time in an actual classroom teaching an actual academic subject.

Thanks to budget problems (!), as reported in last week's P & C, these missteps may be on their way to the dustbins of history in CCSD. Ask yourself, would CCSD's Superintendent McGinley have continued this ineffective program that has been costing the district (by my estimate) roughly $300,000 per year if there were no budgeting problems?

Or would the taxpayers of CCSD be told how the program is paying off? Of course, the P & C article neglects to mention whose idea these coaches were, but the reasonable guess is McGinley herself. Wasn't she Chief Academic Officer? Too embarrassing to remember, I guess.

CCSD Sets Up Experienced Teachers to Take the Fall

Nice to see my friend Cyndi on the front page of the P & C, rather than the usual poseurs who claim to be making a difference. She really is. I may need to change my category to "sung" heroes. [See Seasoned teachers wanted in struggling schools.]

Would you believe that CCSD officials have never tried before to point more experienced teachers towards working in its failing schools? What can I say? They admit it themselves.

The reporter is a bit confused about the difference between an experienced teacher and an NBCT--but I'll let that one pass. At least we finally have the statistic that CCSD has been hiding (where its NBCTs are working): "Only 36 of the county's 293 National Board Certified teachers [. . .] work in schools rated unsatisfactory on the state report card."

Now, why would that be? Hmm. Maybe because the incentive money that comes with NBCT certification doesn't require any such commitment from those teachers? I've pointed out previously that a stipulation to work for a certain period in an under-performing school would spread some of that state money to the schools that really need those teachers. I guess the state legislature doesn't want to upset the education apple cart.

In the "Ripley's Believe It or Not" category, we have Superintendent McGinley, who now wields the power to place teachers that was taken away from the constituent boards, pleading that experienced teachers volunteer out of the goodness of their hearts--no other reward, mind you--to go from the relatively tolerable environments they are now in and dive into the great unknown.

Except it's not the great unknown. What's known is that these schools have great difficulty in keeping faculty year after year. You don't need to teach in one of these schools to know why. Just look at some of the comments on the above-referenced article in the P & C's online edition. For example,

As a Nationally Board Certified teacher who has taught in a "failing" school for the last 7 years, I can tell you why good teachers do not stay in these schools. The paperwork required of these teachers is punitive, many of the administrators are not effective, the students are disrespectful and disruptive, and the teachers can drive down the street a few miles and work in a school where they don't have to deal with any of these things--for the same pay.

All of that being said, a good teacher in one of these schools CAN make a difference. My students consistently score well on tests--and they love to learn--despite where they come from. Not everyone can teach in these schools, but if you have the "gift" and can do it--those kids need you!

If you haven't taught in one of these schools, how do you know "you have the 'gift'"? Does being a highly effective teacher in another environment guarantee it? What happens if you don't? Even the head of the New Teacher Project (yes, let's not forget them--the ones who got paid so much by CCSD for failing to recruit the number of new teachers they promised) said he hadn't previously heard of "such an organized emotional appeal." It comes with a recruiting video but not much else.

Some comments did make sense. Even Daly (of the NTP) pointed out that "the district should make those schools worth wanting, . . . . Schools need to have strong team cultures and good academic instruction so that high-performing teachers will want to go there and stay."

And Kent Riddle, chairman of the Charleston Teacher Alliance, "said the district should focus on the bigger issue of why low-performing schools lack quality teachers. School officials should ask teachers why they leave such schools and evaluate whether those issues are ones they can address."

Ask the teachers? What a novel idea! Certainly McGinley doesn't have any firm ideas in mind other than emotional calls to the altar. Her theorizing about financial incentives and guaranteed jobs held in the school left behind is simply pie in the sky by and by.

Next we know, experienced teachers in the district will be blamed for not heeding the call.

NOTE: For a taste of what goes on in Sacramento, California, see Why couldn't they find the teachers they needed? post of March 1, 2008

Toya's Op-Ed: It's a Gusher for CCSD

If you've given up subscribing to the P & C, you probably haven't seen the latest puff-piece in support of the CCSD School Board in Wednesday's op-ed piece, "One School Board Member's Update: Grounds for Optimism" by school board member Toya Hampton-Green. I'll spare you the bulk of it, since much of it rehashes the rent controversy over the Charter School for Math & Science and explains how the district's budget is being affected by the changes in funding. Needless to say, her viewpoint is indistinguishable from that of Gregg Meyers, et al.

However, some statements were interesting.

According to Green, "We would be fortunate to have [Superintendent McGinley] in Charleston until she retires, which is something she has stated she is interested in doing." Since McGinley's already worn out her welcome in many quarters, that longevity seems unlikely. On the other hand, who else would pay her as much as we do?

Also, Green states, "A board majority voted in favor of allowing [CSMS]'s use of a facility with a rent charge." Although she rehashes the legal issues involved, Green never mentions the unusually high rent proposed nor the racial-quota aspects of CSMS's getting it lowered, an aspect clearly against the law.

Green touts as the Board's accomplishments the release of funds to increase the pay of principals and administrators in the district with a new evaluation process as adjunct. Yes, CCSD officials are fleeing the district due to non-competitive pay in the "Southeast region."

Finally, Green suggests that a strategy to get experienced teachers employed elsewhere in CCSD to "voluntarily transfer to schools in the district that are rated below average or unsatisfactory" is the fruit of eliminating the input of teacher hiring and transfer oversight by constituent boards. What? You mean the district has tried to provide incentives previously? When?

Most ironically for some of us who can recall Hampton-Green's position that she does not represent District 20 but the entire district, she states, "Keep the inquiries coming." Does THAT apply to District 20 also?

Finally, she challenges the P & C to provide more "positive" coverage of the district, providing her own ironic ending.