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!

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.

Jim Rex Confuses Buildings with Standards

Hard to believe, isn't it, that State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex is so confused that he equates buildings with academic standards. Rex revealed his confusion at a Rotary Club meeting in Columbia Monday. As reported in the State, Rex said:

"More political courage is needed by the state’s 170 lawmakers if they are to fix the state’s ailing public education system. [. . . ]

Rex said state lawmakers often tell him they want to stand up for public education but are afraid of being targeted by powerful [so powerful they cannot be named] groups in their home counties. Rex said that within an hour’s drive of Columbia, there are public schools that look like something in the “third world.”

The state’s 700,000 young people in public schools will be the dominant population in the state, so it makes sense to spend money on them, Rex said. A “tsunami” of bad consequences is rushing toward South Carolina if it does not raise public education standards, he said."

Let's follow the logic here: South Carolina's "Corridor of Shame" has "third-world" school buildings. Therefore, the state should replace and/or renovate the buildings. As a result, "public education standards" will rise. Oh, yeah. Better buildings = higher standards.

Listen, I didn't vote for him.

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?

Brinson's School Funding: Five W's and an H?

At the end of a long, fuzzy-thinking op-ed piece aimed, I infer, at the problem of funding the building of more schools for overcrowded Dorchester County [see Public School Funding Requires Rising Above Interest Groups ], Ron Brinson, an ex-associate editor of the P & C makes the following statements:

This is not rocket science. Reliable and equitable school funding models have evolved in many high-growth states.

No further details. Unnamed states. Why wasn't the entire op-ed piece about them? No wonder he's an ex! How about

• who
• what
• when
• where
• why and
  
• how?
  

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.

SC Legislature: Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

Do I often agree with the editorial staff of the P & C? What do you think? However, Thursday's editorial, A Way to Fund School Buses, hit a nerve.

Either the state legislature wants to update the ancient buses used statewide, or it doesn't. I bet if we try we can come up with a long list of expenditures in the new budget that should have much lower priority than protecting public school children with safe buses. Let's face it, due to the idiotic changes in funding of school operating costs and their inevitable downturn in revenue (if not this time, some time!), school districts will be focusing on keeping the lights on, not replacing buses.

If using the politicians' slush fund is the way to go, as the editorial suggests, so be it. If not, find the money somewhere else--maybe in that inflated matching of contributions to pension funds for state legislators.

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.

Shock and Awe, Cane-Bay-High-School Style

We've got to be more impressive than Wando High School!

At least, I guess that's the purpose of this two-story entrance and court for the new Cane Bay High School. Who knows, maybe it's the same architect.

According to Saturday's P & C the new Berkeley County high school's teachers

"demonstrated excitement and awe as they walked under a canopied entrance designed with seven archways.

"They then viewed the two-floor common area, which serves at the school's central gathering place and leads to the cafeteria, auditorium and media center."

Has anyone inquired why so much space needs to be wasted? What does BCSD think it's building--a cathedral?

Your tax dollars at work.

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?

Education Non-Profits: Profitable for Some!

Politics and money and sex.

Wow! Can you imagine a more volatile mixture? Yet that's exactly what we have with the Heritage Keepers program being used statewide and in Charleston County schools.

It's NOT new. It wasn't just adopted this year. Questions have been raised about the selection of this particular nonprofit for YEARS. Questions have been raised about how the program presents itself and who benefits from its contracts. Questions have been raised about its political protectors.

In fact, every red flag you could think of has been raised in regard to this "non-profit" that receives millions of dollars from the taxpayers of South Carolina and seems to have local political links.

Apparently, the P & C has finally decided that the issue merits newsprint in Tuesday's edition.

[See Character Program Questioned].

Let's see. So the SC House is poised to approve a five-member oversight committee for "abstinence-based programs." Why stop there? What about oversight of the rest of the non-profits in the education blob that are swilling at the public trough?

And CCSD's response to questions about the program? "The school district also has asked the state Department of Education for guidance, said Tamara Kirshstein, the district's science and health curriculum coordinator." Now, we don't know how long Ms. Kirshstein has held that position, but after years of using the program, isn't asking for guidance NOW a bit late?

Pathetic, isn't it? Or it would be if it weren't our tax dollars being wasted.

CCSD Shenanigans: The Thick of Derthick

For SIX years--SIX years--CCSD school board members voted to distribute "more money than it was supposed to" from the Lawrence Derthick Jr. Memorial Trust Fund. That's SIX years, folks, when no one watched the store, six years that, if my memory serves me correctly, encompass Don Kennedy's entire service as CCSD's chief financial officer.


To quote Friday's P & C, "The committee administering the fund has given out more money than the fund earned for the past six years. In the future, the district's finance department will notify the board chair of the amount available to be awarded."


Umm. In the future? And the Board weren't notified previously how much was available? What kind of crazy system is that?


Needless to say, the taxpayers will foot the bill for this foolishness, which member Brian Moody called "over-funding" of "worthy and legitimate causes." Moody himself is an accountant, but he didn't notice that a fund that contained $150,000 gave out $50,000 in one year, seriously depleting its principal. Fortunately, member David Engelman pointed out the discrepancy, or as he has said, "what $150,000 investment makes $50,000 in one year?"

Truth to tell, board members used the fund as a personal charity for favored groups, some undoubtedly deserving, and some, like the one run by Nancy Cook, an apparent conflict of interest. Two CCSD board members, unnamed in the article (but one is Hillery Douglas) and a third from the District 20 constituent board make the recommendations to the full CCSD board each year.

As the P & C points out, "The fund isn't supposed to fall below its principal amount, but that happened this year after the board doled out too many grants. The fund has earned an average of $500 in monthly interest for the past four years, but at that rate, the fund would take more than seven years to rebuild itself to the principal amount."

Where IS Al Parish when we need him?

Eyes on the Prize in This CCSD Fight

In one corner we have a school building that began life as Rivers High School, renovated previously at a cost of millions, sitting vacant, perhaps as an emblem of wasted taxpayer dollars.

In the other corner we have an avid group of racially-diverse parents and citizens anxious to bring true academic success to downtown Charleston in an integrated setting in the form of a charter high school in District 20.

And in the middle we have obstructionist Gregg Meyers and the majority of the CCSD school board--that would be Douglas, Cook, Jordan, and Hampton-Green, who suddenly must defend the indefensible action taken arrogantly in August. The Board is about to find out that just because you have a 5-4 majority does not mean that riding roughshod over the minority has no consequences.

Today's editorial staff of the P & C does a fairly creditable job of taking on Meyers's self-serving Letter to the Editor published on the same page, so I'm just going to point out the downside if CCSD doesn't do a 180 and allow a public school to use a public school building in the same manner as James Island Charter High School and Orange Grove Elementary. As I've said before, parents stymied in creating better schools as charter schools ultimately will turn their efforts to school vouchers. Can you blame them? To them, their children's education is not an intellectual exercise. Even now, as reported in the State, the prospects for school choice look better for the next legislative session.
In addition, as the P & C's editors so delicately put it, "Mr. Meyers also writes that he will try to return the question of the school's rent to the board's agenda." My! I'm sure it will take a herculean effort for him to gather his sycophants to agree, since they've been following his advice all along.

The editors also point out that, "When the rent issue was last considered, two board members were not physically present but participated in the discussion by telephone. This issue is a critical one to the school's future and deserves a full hearing and debate, which to his credit, Mr. Meyers recognizes and is working to accomplish." Well, he certainly didn't recognize it the FIRST time around!

Maybe they're playing to his ego so that he will cooperate, but notice that the editors did not NAME the board members who participated and VOTED by telephone--that would be Board Chairwoman Nancy Cook and MEYERS HIMSELF. Further, it doesn't take a crystal ball to know who designed the invidious rent policy in the first place and knew that it would come to a vote while he was absent.

Gregg Meyers can make all the nice noises about charter schools he wishes, but the reality is that he can't stand the idea of losing power--a sad example of a former Civil Rights lawyer stuck in the sixties. Apparently, he suspects any group that he doesn't personally control of ulterior motives.


And he's part of a system that has produced de facto segregation in virtually every District 20 school. He's the one whose motives should be suspect.

Whistle-Blower Writes Feds: CCSD Finally Acts

Maybe the P & C wants to make sure that readers always read to the end of their article. or maybe the real news is too embarrassing to put in today's headline, which merely states,


"County schools return $32,000 overcharge: Report on breakfasts served was overstated."

Who was not watching the store? The article throws lots of district-wide numbers at the reader but clearly boils down to this. During the 2006-07 school year at Stall High School until February a former food services director and two other CCSD employees committed fraud by sending in ridiculously higher numbers of breakfasts served in hopes of getting more pay in the following year.

CHARGES HAVE NOT BEEN PRESSED, NOR DO THESE CRIMINALS HAVE NAMES. Their full punishment, according to the article, is no longer being employed by CCSD! Well, after all, they were only planning to steal federal tax dollars.

According to Courrege,"The individuals responsible for oversight, Mark Cobb, the district's executive director of facility services, and Walter Campbell, the district's food services director, said they didn't find out about the discrepancy until May." So, the number jumped remarkably higher but no one in charge noticed or maybe cared. After all, what's the incentive to ask for FEWER dollars?

Claiming "an isolated incident," Cobb happily reports that "The food service budget still broke even, and the miscalculation didn't result in any other consequence to the district." Well, the budget should break even if it's reinbursed for the actual number served!

Of course, the district refuses to discuss why the three employees left, claiming "personnel matters" and, in response to this embarrassing problem, has hired another bureaucrat to do this part of Cobb's and Campbell's jobs.

To our UNSUNG HEROES list we should now add, along with Rudell Burch, wonder-worker former principal at Schroder Middle School, the name of Paul Nowosielski, cafeteria manager at Stall. When ignored by his supervisors after reporting the problem soon after being hired at Stall in February, he hoped patiently for action until the end of the school year and then wrote a "letter to the federal government." Campbell and Cobb can play CYA until the cows come home, but no one writes to the feds unless he's getting the run-around. They probably figured the extra money he would get THIS year, according to the crazy remuneration used by CCSD, would keep him quiet. Nowosielski is the one that points out that the system "gives people an incentive to falsify the numbers." It's also not clear if he kept his job after that.

Who invited him to the party?

Wouldn't you love to see the contents of that letter?

Does he still have a job at Stall or with the District?

County Council & State: What About City Council?

So the editors of the Post and Courier find it appropriate to criticize the state "competitive grants" program, as I have? They side with a lawsuit brought against it by a "citizens reform group," do they? [See today's editorial page.]


How about closer to home, editors? You've now editorialized about the Charleston County Council's handouts and the state's pork. What about funds given to charities and nonprofits that are hidden in the City Council's budget? They don't count?


Don't you wonder what the City-Council equivalents are of our state-tax dollars for "the Hilarity Festival, the Come-See-Me Festival, the Mighty Mo Festival, the Flopeye Fish Festival and Squealing on the Square"?


Let's not be hypocrites.

Council's "Earmarks," or Are They Payoffs?

According to the P & C of August 31, the big winners from the Charleston County Council's slush fund derived from our tax dollars (those receiving $5,000 or more, no strings attached) are:

• Crisis Ministries, $23,000;
• American Red Cross, $15,250;
• Evening of Prayer Ministries (food services), $14,000;
• Pastors, Inc. (anti-drug program), $11,000;
• Lowcountry Senior Center, $9,000;
• Coastal Crisis Chaplaincy, $8,000;
• Kecia E. Miller Foundation (free mammography screening), $7,000;
• Lowcountry Crisis Pregnancy Center, $7,000;
• SC Coalition for Black Voter Participation, $7,000;
• Youth Empowerment Services, $7,000;
• Lowcountry Food Bank, $6,750; YWCA of Greater Charleston, $5,500;
• Center for Women, $5,000;

And those who got a "little something" of $1,000:

• Boys and Girls Clubs of the Trident Area, $1,000;
• Center for Heirs Property Preservation, $1,000;
• Eastside Community Development Corp., $1,000;
• New Horizons, $1,000;
• North Charleston Community Interfaith Shelter, $1,000;
• Palmetto Project, (health care access), $1,000;
• Rein and Shine (equine assisted therapy), $1,000;
• St. James South Santee Senior and Community Center, $1,000;
• Vanderhorst Koinonia Ministries, (Road to Success Job Fair), $1,000

And those "in the middle"?

• Daniel Joseph Jenkins Institute for Children, $4,750;
• Dee Norton Lowcountry Children's Center, $4,000;
• Independent Transportation Network, $4,000;
• Trident Literacy Association, $4,000;
• My Sister's House, $3,750;
• Special Olympics, $3,500;
• Father to Father Project, $3,250;
• Lowcountry AIDS, $3,250;
• Carolina Youth Development Center, $3,000;
• Communities in Schools of the Charleston Area Inc., $3,000;
• Emancipation Proclamation Association Inc. (student scholarships), $3,000;
• Family Recovery Court, $3,000;
• Hospice of Charleston, $3,000;
• Metanoia Community Development Corp., $3,000;
• Project Read, $2,500;
• Bridge of Hope, $2,000;
• Charleston Area Senior Citizen Services, $2,000;
• Charleston County Children's Medical Homes Project, $2,000;
• Charleston Development Academy Charter School, $2,000;
• Clemson Extension Services, $2,000;
• Florence Crittenton Program, $2,000;
• Goodwill Development Center Sweetgrass Cultural Arts Festival, $2,000;
• Humanities Foundation, $2,000;
• Sustainability Institute (sustainable homes), $2,000;
• Cannon Street YMCA, $2,000.

According to the same article, the state attorney general has said, "As a general rule, outside agencies that get public dollars should serve a substantial segment of the community and the public purpose should involve a governmental function. That rules out projects that benefit a particular group or neighborhood. The attorney general also has cautioned that any contribution to a religious group for social services such as feeding programs must be on a contract basis."

Congratulations to the three Council members who refused to go along with this charade of giving tax dollars to nonprofits in exchange for support--Thurmond, Bostic, and Schweers.

No one questions that some of those on the list are quite deserving. Others are mysterious. Mainly, it's the method of delivery that's disturbing.

CCSD: A MEGO and the Tip of the Iceberg

The appropriateness of William Safire's term--MEGO--struck me as I watched the tape of last Tuesday's meeting of the CCSD Board of Trustees. On the new school budget, MEGO--that's short for "my eyes glaze over"--truly applied as the millions of dollars flew in the air and on the Power Point and the millage fluctuated in Don Kennedy's presentation. Kennedy will not soon be named a reality-TV-show host.

It's hard to take any of it seriously (although I know the participants functioned as required by law) when on the Tuesday prior to the legislature's recess, no "hold harmless" legislation had been passed for a more-than-$10-million shortfall from the state. Yet the district mode was full- steam-ahead, counting on promises alone.

Then there's the not-so-small question raised by Ravenel regarding the accuracy of Kennedy's millage estimate. The estimate seemed to account for all the difference in other potential shortfalls and cuts. See, I did manage to stay focused for most of the presentation.

Yet the drone was punctuated, however briefly, by interesting questions and responses.

The previously-requested comparison of CCSD administrative costs in regard to other school districts was one such topic. Whether deliberately or not, the CCSD's accounting set-up for "leadership" contains ingredients not comparable to most other districts. Workers' compensation and insurance costs are included, whereas most other districts distribute those costs to individual schools. Moody made some silly remarks about allocating those costs to the schools so that the Board could claim that it had provided another $7 million to schools. I say, someone on the Board needs to request COMPARABLE percentages. Yes, that would require some research, but wasn't that the point of the Board's request in the first place? Obfuscation.

Second, did I hear correctly that the cost of Workers' Compensation had been reduced 83% in the last year???? What the heck was going on in previous years?

Also, the district's being forced to use an incorrect figure posted last Feb. 1st by the State Department of Education is yet another example of incompetence at the state level and belated response by CCSD. Since the correct number is known, and that correction adds money to CCSD, why has the Board not already pursued a legal opinion?

Last, but not least, Ravenel pointedly brought up the auditing process for the district. Frankly, I was at first relieved to hear that there WAS an audit. His point, however, was dead on: Kennedy sits on the committee that selects the auditing firm that audits. . . Kennedy.

Why do the Board members insist on creating conflicts of interest? For example, Nancy Cook makes a big deal of abstaining from voting on CCSD funds distributed to the shelter she directs, but she's still board chairman, isn't she? Surely we have progressed from the "we're-all-ladies-and-gentlemen-here-and-can-trust-our-pure-motives" mindset?

In fact, why have written contracts? Let's do everything on a handshake, like in the good old days.

Would that we could!

District 20 "Stakeholder" Meetings: $77,000

In the midst of other hot topics from last Monday's CCSD Board meeting came the vote authorizing an expenditure of $77,000 for Harvey Gantt to facilitate meetings in District 20 on the future of the Rivers Middle School building.

That's the one empty right now after several million dollars' worth of renovations; the one that the proposed downtown charter high school organization has asked to use; the one that the district counter-proposed for use in vo-tech programs; the one requested by Hillery Douglas's sister for Youthbuild Charter (now in North Charleston).

In the midst of the daunting budget process this year, $10 million shortfall and all, does CCSD REALLY need to spend $77,000 for another series of meetings to determine what is to be done with a building?

Did anyone on the Board dare ask, as others have, what has happened to the previous plan facilitated by Gantt with District 20 meetings in 2004?

Oh, while we're at it, may we ask how much that series of meetings cost?

I'm convinced that the district is simply trying to find some cover to refuse use of the building to the proposed charter high school. It doesn't want an INTEGRATED high school downtown.

I know to sensible people that attitude doesn't make sense, but in District 20 it's an Alice-in-Wonderland world. If the reverse situation were true (that District 20 was all white), can you imagine the storm that would ensue with the refusal of a truly integrated high school? The mind boggles.

CCSD wants control. After all, look what a great job it's done with Burke Middle/High School.

Soooo Many Questions: CCSD Operations

What a plethora of problems (or should I say "challenges") for those of us who care about transparency in how CCSD is run and results in trying to fix it!
A few random ruminations:

1. Annette Goodwin (of Youthbuild) is Hillery Douglas's sister? And now she wants to compete with the group hoping to start a new D20 charter high school--that actually would be integrated? Is that why the Board has been dragging its feet these many weeks? You know what I've said in previous posts on other topics--in the South knowing who's related to whom really sheds insight.


2. Did the Board even vote on approval of dispersal of funds from the Derthick Fund? If so, that was not reported by the P&C. I'm still trying to figure out why the fund even exists. Why wasn't the money in the district teachers' retirement fund taken by the state when the state retirement fund was instituted? Isn't that money that was dedicated to retirement previously? And was it the retirement fund for D20 only?


3. How do we get the Board (and the district) to create REAL magnet schools that measure up to magnet schools in every other part of the United States--that have resources and a stated purpose or focus?


4. What's the way to make CCSD give Charleston Progressive a foreign language teacher so that its middle schoolers will not be at a disadvantage when entering 9th grade?


5. What exactly is the "Reconfiguration Plan" and why is it sitting on the shelf?


6. Why didn't Goodloe-Johnson or the P&C report that McGinley is on vacation? G-J sounded like she's meeting with her every day when interviewed on local TV.


7. Where do I begin with the CCSD budget and shortfalls? Can of worms!


8. What now can be done to move forward on the Fraser-Sanders-Clyde shared principal front?


9. Has the US Attorney ever taken an interest in the shenanigans in District 20--where the powers-that-be are satisfied with segregated schools?


10. I've got more . . . soon.

The Law of Unintended Consequences, Part II: NBCT's

A reminder of the South Carolina legislature's short-sightedness regarding National Board Certification appeared in the Post and Courier last Wednesday. The article concerned the report issued by the NBCT Summit held in South Carolina last August. [see http://www.thescea.org/policy.pdf ] for the full report.

Why nine months' labor was required to publish the report is not clear, but at least one of its statistics is very predictable: Of the 5000 NBCT's in South Carolina (and aren't we proud that we are third in the nation in numbers!) a mere 132 teach in "high-needs" schools! For the math-challenged, that's about two and one-half percent.

What happened? You may want to check out my post of last August titled, "The Law of Unintended Consequences."

The report of the Summit has several recommendations, including adding an additional $5000 to NBCT's who teach in the failing schools in question. There is nothing wrong with their analysis. It's just that, as usual, South Carolina is trying to lock the barn door after the horse got out.

Would it not be nice to have administrators and legislators with foresight? Seeing this train coming down the tracks would not have taken a rocket scientist.

Now, it's lack of foresight, or intentional neglect, (I'm not sure which) that caused the state legislature (also last summer) to restructure the tax base for school funding without giving any attention to the consequences for the funds it sends to school districts.

That's our $11 million shortfall.