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.

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!

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.

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?

SC Montessori Programs: Where's the Beef?

Maria Montessori, a pioneer in childhood education, took children from the Italian equivalent of housing projects and showed that they were educable. Since the recognition of her success early in the twentieth century, her methods have spread in various incarnations around the world.

My own experience with "real" (not American) Montessori was my child's enrollment in a preschool that mixed children from 3 to 5 years old with highly-educated, wealthy parents in a private school with small classes. It was a good experience for my child, although I'm not sure that a more traditional atmosphere wouldn't have been the same.

Now the SC State Department of Education is touting Montessori programs as one of the ways to improve graduation rates. According to Monday's Post and Courier, the state's coordinator of Montessori education, Ginny Riga said, "Montessori isn't for everyone. Some students need more structure or learn better through lectures, but she contends that's a small percentage. 'There's so much emphasis on the love of learning and respect of learning, instead of push, push, push for skill and drill.'" Lectures? Please, stop the straw-man arguments.

You know, until she made that last crack about "push, push, push for skill and drill" as being antithetical to "the love of learning and respect of learning," I was ready to go along with Riga. Now I want the hard statistics on South Carolina's 33 Montessori schools, adjusted, of course, for the usual socio-economic factors.

According to the article, SC's Montessori schools have been around since the mid-1990s. That's long enough to gather preliminary statistics on whether they have produced more engaged and more prepared students. Has anyone been charged with finding out? And, by the way, how many of these programs go past the sixth grade? That might have some bearing on whether graduation rates would be improved.

As they say, "Where's the beef?"

Charter School for Math & Science: Elite?

Let's go to the dictionary for this one.

Elite: the choice part; the best of a class ; the socially superior part of society; a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence; a member of such an elite —usually used in plural (Merriam-Webster On-Line).

With CCSD School Board Trustee Ruth Jordan's recent words about the "wealthy elite" desiring a charter school downtown, we need to look at the present demographics of the group of about 170 students enrolling so far. [A previous post has the black-white breakdown]:

• 78% from Charleston County Public Schools
• 19% from private schools
• 3% from home schools
  

Also

• 22% of private school students are African American
• 60% of home school students are African American
  

And

• 34% are eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch

Well, Ruth?

Inner-City Dropout Rates Reflect CCSD, Too

Perhaps this cartoon will remind you of recent news stories on the cities that that have the highest dropout rates in America. The figures, in fact, show that surrounding the miserable rates of graduation in each of those cities are suburban school systems with low dropout rates. Is anyone surprised?

Let's put these statistics into perspective for CCSD. Cities such as Detroit and Cleveland have school districts that are SEPARATE from the surrounding suburbs. Students do not legally cross those district lines to attend school.

Such is NOT the case in CCSD. Thanks to the Consolidation Act of thirty-some years ago, here in Charleston County the "urban" (if you can call it that!) "hole" is part of the same district as the suburban "doughnut" that surrounds it. Students cross from the hole into the doughnut (and vice versa) in large numbers every day. They are able to do so because the county is all one school district, unlike the situation in larger urban areas. Yet the outcome is amazingly the same!

How could that be? Well, how could it be that downtown Constituent District 20, containing a majority of white students of high school age, has one high school (Burke) that, for all intents and purposes, is all black? Why do up to 30 percent of students attending Burke come in from the suburbs? Where do the majority white students disappear to every morning? How did that come about?

And, what is the result in terms of dropout rates? You guessed it. Burke's matches inner-city Detroit and Cleveland, while suburban high schools like Wando match their counterparts in the suburbs of those cities. North Charleston doesn't count: it is rapidly becoming the "hole" for the "doughnut" districts of other counties.

Let's Hear from Jim Rex on This Topic

Click on picture to enlarge.

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 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

The Statistical Case Against Buist's Lottery

All but the most optimistic residents of District 20 of CCSD and their friends were unhappy but not surprised by Judge Scarborough's ruling concerning the lawsuit against Buist Academy's admissions policies. If he had ruled in their favor, it would be the first sign of a break in the wall. [See County Board Wins Buist Battle in Saturday's edition of the P & C].

However, if 75 Calhoun thinks that residents of District 20 will simply go quietly into the night--well, another case is yet to be made. Of course, the plaintiffs should go ahead with their appeal of this one, but if the courts refuse to interpret the rules to mean what they say, the statistical route remains. It's time to pull it into shape.

Now, before you stop reading, let me say that I'm not going to bore you with statistics here. My point is that many high-profile lawsuits have been won on such data, the most obvious one being against the tobacco companies. The legal reason for that warning on each pack of cigarettes is the statistical correlation between cigarette-smoking and cancer, not scientific or medical evidence (although I'm sure by now some exists).

You can see where I'm heading with this. A statistician should be able to take the addresses of each student of Buist for the last, say, 10 years, and show that it is statistically impossible to arrive at the composition of its student population as it has stood over that decade without finagling and malfeasance on the part of officials "testing" with the YCAT and running the "lottery."

In other words, based on CCSD's use of four lists for kindergarten, a statistical case can be made that the number of Buist students living in District 20 should be within a certain range if CCSD has followed its own rules. Needless to say, CCSD officials, especially Janet Rose, have done everything in their power to avoid handing over the numbers. Thanks to FOIA, they can't hide forever.

Now that Doug Gepford supposedly is culling the waiting lists for Buist, will its "lottery" also be run transparently, or will we again have "trust us, the unknown number beside your child's name didn't come up." [If you want to see how its lottery "works," see my blog of last March, Gambling by the Numbers: Magic Tuition Money.]

Superintendent McGinley's integrity is on the line here.

SC Schools Are Second in Something

I'm not sure the SC Department of Education should be proud of this latest statistic. Doesn't it suggest that South Carolina's public school students are among the poorest in the nation?

South Carolina school breakfast participation rates rank second in the nation, state’s efforts commended

Participation by South Carolina students in the school breakfast program last year was 101 percent, and the ratio of serving free and reduced price students at lunch and breakfast was the second highest in the nation, according to a report by the Food Research and Action Center. The School Breakfast Scorecard 2007 gives data for all states and highlights successful strategies.

The rest of the press release can be found on the SC Department of Education website.

Fix Dropout Rate? Start with Preschool

Most of us read with interest CCSD's latest attempt to address the dropout rate among African-American males [see Retreat's goal: Help black male students in the P & C's Sunday edition]. The actual rate is a secret (if anyone actually knows, which I doubt), but if the overall dropout rate hovers around a horrible 50%, can we assume that for black males it is close to 75%?

The participants recommended several ideas that Randy Bynum, Chief Academic Officer, promised to take to CCSD for possible implementation, obfuscation, and/or the circular file. However, the remarks made by Lee Gaillard, interim principal at Murray Hill and former Burke High principal and coach, made the most sense. Among other comments, Gaillard suggested that "the community needs more dialogue and follow-up on this issue"; that he "remembers intense local discussions in 1975 about violence in schools that ended after a few years, and now it's 2008 and the same problems still exist"; and that [too?] "much of the discussion focused on middle and high school students, and he'd like to see more talk about what could be done for preschool and elementary-aged students."

So it was with interest that I read this column in today's Washington Post. Note the comments about what [statistically] has worked. CCSD must seriously keep track of the effects of its various programs. Too often "fixes" have not been shown to produce the desired results.

Dropout Solutions That Work

By Jay Mathews
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 15, 2008; 10:08 AM

I am starting this column with a chart, something journalists are never supposed to do. I found it on page 179 of a new book with one of those titles, "The Price We Pay: Economic and Social Consequences of Inadequate Education," that scholars consider necessary but discourages readers. I beg you to stay with me, because this particular chart is surprising and important (I have changed the format slightly to make it easier to absorb).

Table 9-1. Interventions that Demonstrably Raise the High School Graduation Rate

(Intervention -- Extra high school graduates if intervention is given to 100 students)

1. Perry Preschool Program (1.8 years of a center-based program for 2.5 hours per weekday, child-teacher ratio of 5:1; home visits; group meetings of parents.) 19 extra graduates.

2. First Things First (Comprehensive school reform based on small learning communities with dedicated teachers, family advocates and instructional improvement efforts.) 16 extra graduates.

3. Chicago Child-Parent Center program (Center-based preschool program: parental involvement, outreach and health/nutrition services. Based in public schools.) 11 extra graduates.

4. Project STAR: class size reduction (4 years of schooling in grades K-3 with class size reduced from 25 to 15.) 11 extra graduates.

5. Teacher salary increase (10 percent increase, K-12) 5 extra graduates.

This list is the work of Clive R. Belfield of Queens College of the City University of New York and Henry M. Levin of Teachers College at Columbia University, editors of the book and authors of the chapter in which the chart appears. Belfield and Levin are among the best of the economists who are doing some of the most promising research on how to fix schools.

Dropouts are probably the biggest and least soluble problem in high school. About 30 percent of ninth graders don't finish high school in four years nationally. That figure rises to 50 percent in our poorest neighborhoods. Few school systems are doing much about it, in part because there is so little information on what should be done.

Yet the five programs listed in the chart do work, based on solid research, Belfield and Levin say. The bad news is those were the only programs of proven value they could find after examining hundreds of articles and reports. They wanted programs whose results had been rigorously evaluated and had proven to produce significant increases in graduation rates. They found, instead, "few experimental designs with random assignment, few quasi-experimental studies with strong design to ensure equivalent groups for comparison, and few rigorous statistical and econometric methods to identify effects of interventions." [italics mine]

Notice something else: Only one of these five programs is something that high school educators can do, even though they are the people getting most of the blame for our high dropout rates. Some critics say I should not be putting high schools with high dropout rates but superior college preparation programs on my lists of best schools. The chart buttresses my view that the fine educators in those schools deserve a break on this issue, since most of the effective anti-dropout programs start long before students reach high school.

Each of the five solutions identified by Belfield and Levin is interesting. All should be on the top of every presidential candidate's agenda, and indeed many of them are, at least in a general way. The first and third most effective methods are preschool programs, something many candidates support. The Perry Preschool Program began in Michigan 40 years ago. It has the rare advantage of data on its participants' subsequent lives that extends to the present day. The Chicago Child-Parent Center program had a similar long-term focus, following its participants up to age 20.

Some presidential candidates also support reducing class size, which is what Project STAR in Tennessee, the fourth-ranked program, did. Some candidates call for raising teacher salaries, the effects of which were revealed by the fifth-ranked study, by Susanna Loeb and Marianne E. Page.

But the one effective high school program, breaking dysfunctional urban schools into small learning communities, is not discussed very often on the campaign trail. That program, First Things First, was carried out in Kansas City, Kan. It was part of a national switch to smaller high schools that is drawing a great deal of support, including millions of dollars from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Belfield and Levin spend much of their chapter calculating which of the five methods was most cost effective. First Things First won that race, with benefits 3.54 times greater than its cost. Next in line were the Chicago Parent-Child Centers (benefits 3.09 times greater than costs), the teacher salary increase (2.55) , the Perry Preschool Program (2.31) and the class size reduction (1.46).

These are the estimates of two economists crunching their numbers on computers, not the real life experience of teachers, parents, students and taxpayers taking these ideas and using them in their own communities. Their situations are likely to be different from those of the schools covered in these studies. Belfield and Levin point out that there may be other good programs that reduce dropouts, but the research on them is not good enough yet. This is a start. Where we go next depends on how serious we are about solving one of our worst social problems.

Douglas & CCSD: Segregation Is OK

CCSD Board Chairman Hillery Douglas and CCSD Superintendent Nancy McGinley made some very revealing comments last week when the State Department of Education released its findings on segregation in South Carolina's schools. Strangely enough, as far as I can tell, the entire story appeared only on TV outlets and not in the P & C.

Needless to say, the report showed that most of District 20's schools are segregated. Douglas's interesting comment about the findings was that he didn't have a problem with that. McGinley's comments included the thought that such segregation is caused by housing patterns and, therefore, nothing can be done about it.

First of all, Supt. McGinley, you're not in Philadelphia any more. Please take a good look at the Census figures for black and white residents on the penninsula; then tell us why the schools are segregated. It's not because of housing patterns. Check out the Census for Johns Island while you're at it. Just maybe this school segregation has been caused by CCSD policies over the last 40 years.

As for Mr. Douglas's attitude, I find it hard to know where to begin. Certainly his remarks reveal why CCSD has made no progress in desegregation under his watch. He doesn't care!

I'm not one of those idiots who believe that black students must sit in the same classroom with white ones in order to learn to read and write better. I do believe that black and white students need to be in the same classroom to LEARN ABOUT EACH OTHER. Hasn't such understanding always been one of the goals of public education?

Otherwise, students in white enclaves can continue to believe that all black students their age are druggies and dropouts, while students in black enclaves can continue to believe that all white students are spoiled and prejudiced slackers.

Charter Opponents and Failing AYP Face-Off

The page editors of the P & C' s Local & State section have a sense of humor. How else to explain the following side-by-side headlines in Wednesday's paper: "S.C. Schools Static on Federal Goals: Results Expected to Dive Next Year" and "Group Vows to Fight New Charter School: Johns Island Gathering Backs Haut Gap."


McGinley and Rex can try damage control by touting how much higher S.C.'s standards are than those of other states, but the reality remains. While the state has one of the lowest percentages of students to make it into the twelfth grade, it also leads in having the lowest SAT scores. How those scores would plummet if every student stayed in school and took the SAT (as required in Maine) probably would mirror the "dive" coming next year in meeting AYP!

Back to Haut Gap. Does anyone believe it met AYP for this year? How much might it have improved from the overall score of 65% below basic on the PACT in 2006? What does it say about the school that its rally against the charter school drew only "more than 20" from the community, perhaps half of whom were district, school, and community leaders? Let's hear a few comments from parents who have children in that school NOW. Maybe they would like a choice, too.

Meanwhile, fear of segregation is less of a motivation here than keeping a new school building for Haut Gap on schedule for 2008, as the Rev. Michael Mack, PTA President and "community advocate" has admitted previously. The planned new building will double the size of the present student body, even though Principal Padron brags on the school's website that its small size allows for "smaller learning communities and individualized instruction."

Fortunately, with S.C.'s new legislation this charter school need not apply to CCSD for approval to go through the Alice-in-Wonderland contortions faced by the downtown Charter High School for Math and Science. One participant in the meeting did have a good idea, however: why not take Haut Gap charter? Then the Haut Gap supporters would need not go, hat in hand, to the CCSD Board meeting on November 12 to "get the money and resources it needs."

Academic Magnet Lottery? You've Got to Be Kidding

Why now? That's the question CCSD parents should ask themselves.

Oh, yes. I know what Janet Rose said--that there were too many qualified applicants for Academic Magnet High School (AMHS), and to avoid its being "elitist," a lottery should select those admitted.

Why now? Because AMHS enjoys national recognition now.

And those parents who previously sent their children away to Choate and Phillips Andover or signed them up for Porter-Gaud or Ashley Hall are thinking to themselves, "Wait a minute. Why spend tens of thousands per year for what we can get for free in a nationally-ranked local school"?

Everything was going along so swimmingly for CCSD until AMHS became full about four years ago; then, based on a School Improvement Committee recommendation, the school began to rank applicants on four criteria--and admit them according to that ranking. No wonder we've been hearing rumblings on this blog regarding Buist Academy students who haven't made it into AMHS.



Yes, that's correct. Graduation from Buist Academy is no longer an automatic ticket to the Academic Magnet High School! Gregg Meyers and his ilk should breathe a sigh of relief that their children have already completed their public school education!

Of COURSE, rankings will eliminate some Buist applicants; no one (except a few deluded Buist parents) claims that the school has cornered the market on the brightest students in CCSD. Certainly, the YCAT doesn't test for that, as everyone who's paying attention already knows.

Logic would seem to suggest that the solution for so many bright, well-qualified students would be to make AMHS larger to accomodate them.

When did CCSD ever operate according to logic? No, CCSD self-interest suggests the lottery solution.

Why, if AMHS took all of those qualified students, their high schools' test scores would drop; their principals and the district superintendent would look bad! That's logical, also.

If the most talented CCSD students will attend AMHS on a roll of the dice, CCSD needs to ask itself why it has a magnet high school at all. What philosophy justifies leveling by lottery?

To put the icing on the cake, in Wednesday's P & C article, Courrege stated that "District officials . . . say they have to adhere to the county school board's policy on the process, but they're not sure what that policy is. To figure it out, they are going through nearly 20 years of archived paper records."

In fact, they'll let us know when they finish inventing it.

Do they really believe they can manipulate admission into AMHS as they have for Buist?

What Schools Do Charleston's Achievement Scholars Attend?

It should come as no shock:

• James Island Charter High School--one

• Porter-Gaud School--two

• Wando High School--two

• Academic Magnet High School--four

students named as National Achievement Semifinalists in the National Merit Scholarship Competition.

Still, you have to wonder how the distribution would change if the elementary and middle schools in, say, District 4 (North Charleston), District 9 (Johns Island), and District 20 (downtown) had the resources of Buist Academy.

Food for thought.

Singing the Blues over the SAT

Yes, I'm going to be negative. There's plenty to be negative about! Despite CCSD's boast regarding the hike in its overall SAT scores for 2007, the picture remains gloomy. We aren't keeping up with the Joneses.

Should we cheer because CCSD is approaching the South Carolina state average?

• Should we be happy that CCSD's two magnet high schools (School of the Arts and Academic Magnet) made it into the top 15 in a state ranked 49th?
• Can we reassure ourselves that the problem suggested by the P & C, "Revised SAT stumps students for second year," has caused South Carolina to lag?
• Maybe we should be happy that only four of the lowest performing high schools in the state are in Charleston County, even if CCSD does have more low performers than any other school district in the state.
• Best of all, we can be happy that the Writing section isn't counted in the rankings since that would have put us DEAD LAST.
• I know, we can revel in beating the District of Columbia, that notoriously corrupt district that has just been taken over by its mayor!
• And, furthermore, we've slammed the great State of Maine, which did come in dead last--because ALL of its high school seniors (100%) were required to take the SAT.

Courrege and Hagen quote Jim Rex as saying, "The state is headed in the right direction, but it needs to have greater improvement at a faster rate." In the right direction? Didn't the overall scores just DROP?

While pointing to a nine-point gain in CCSD's composite score, McGinley also acknowledges that about half of the district's high schools saw their scores drop. That's with only 60 percent taking the test overall in the district, and those are from the 50% left in the schools by senior year, thanks to CCSD's massive dropout rate.

Does anyone besides Jim Rex think that a "new funding system for the state's schools" and "pay increases and a public relations campaign" improving the morale of teachers is the answer to this problem?