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.

Feel Free to Rant About Comcast

Did you ever hear a good story about dealing with Comcast? Apparently one was posted on a Maryland-based blog my daughter regularly visits. She became so incensed that she responded with a blast regarding her three-month-long battle to get reliable internet service.

Well, our battle took only two weeks. I could rant on about incompetent management and disappearing personnel; however, I am grateful to the final installer who performed his work professionally. I'm sure he's unhappy with his fellow workers who give Comcast a bad name.

But then, how about the following story from last October:

75-Year-Old Woman Takes Hammer to Comcast Office

After not showing up for appointments, 75-year-old rampages through local Comcast office.

Photo Credit: By Richard A. Lipski—The Washington Post

By Jason Unger
10.22.2007 — If only we could actually do the things we sometimes think about doing.

Mona Shaw, a 75-year-old Bristow, Va. woman, did.

Shaw recently went on a rampage at her local Comcast office after the service provider missed a scheduled appointment, came without completing the installation, and then cut off her service.

When she went to the local office to complain, she ended up waiting for a manager—for two hours. And then the manager never came.

After a weekend of “stewing,” she went back to the office ... with her hammer.

As the Washington Post reports:

Hammer time: Shaw storms in the company’s office. BAM! She whacks the keyboard of the customer service rep. BAM! Down goes the monitor. BAM! She totals the telephone. People scatter, scream, cops show up and what does she do? POW! A parting shot to the phone!

“They cuffed me right then,” she says.

Her take on Comcast: “What a bunch of sub-moronic imbeciles.”

Wow! We’re not going to condone this action, but it is pretty interesting.

Shaw received a three-month suspended sentence for disorderly conduct, a one-year restraining order from the local Comcast office and a $345 fine.

Now I feel much better.

Delay, Linger, and Wait: Again with the Fire Report

Why do politicians make important announcements late on Friday afternoons? No, this is not a trick question.

It's to get bad news out when their audience is paying the least attention. Some won't even get the word until the following Monday, and by then the worst of the storm will have blown over (at least that's what politicians hope).

So it should come as no surprise that it was late on Friday afternoon, only a few hours ago, that Mayor Riley, who no one doubts has political skill, announced that the long-awaited requested panel investigative report on the fatal fire at the Sofa Super Store will now be delayed until the middle of June.

The middle of June. For a report that originally was supposed to come out in December. Actually, what Riley said was, "the panel's report could be released over the summer, but he refused to commit to a definite timetable." Now the excuse is a wait for the results of two federal probes.

You know, Joe, at this point people are beginning to murmur, what has he got to hide?

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?

Copycat, Copycat: Now It's Chicago

Bishop England? Academic Magnet? If it works one place, why not another? See

• Threats Close Three Colleges, Four More Schools

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.

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.

P & C Charter School Piece Good for a Laugh

CCSD is an "incubator"! Why, thank goodness. Our failing school system has a positive aspect as an incubator for charter schools, no less! I'm sure the various folk involved with the new Charter School for Math and Science got a good chortle over that one this morning, but maybe Courrege is right--just not in the positive way she spins it.

From Merriam-Webster's On-line Dictionary:

one that incubates: as a: an apparatus by which eggs are hatched artificially b: an apparatus with a chamber used to provide controlled environmental conditions especially for the cultivation of microorganisms or the care and protection of premature or sick babies c: an organization or place that aids the development of new business ventures especially by providing low-cost commercial space, management assistance, or shared services

Yes, we can agree that CCSD has provided the "controlled environmental conditions" needed for the spread of charter schools. That would disastrous policies and poor planning that have led to the mess we are in today, one that encourages parents to get their children out of traditional public schools in any way they can.

Even in a back-handed way, we can agree that CCSD has aided "the development of new [charter schools]," albeit in a negative fashion. That is, as more and more diverse groups of constituents find common cause in jumping ship from its sinking system, new charter schools are being born. However, someone needs to read the last part of the definition to CCSD: that of "providing low-cost commericial space, management assistance, or shared services." Well, actually these charter schools can thrive without the last two!

In fact, if trends keep up, perhaps the CCSD School Board will no longer need to exist.

See School district has most charter schools in state, expected to grow

Dumb and Dumber: Graduate at 16

Would someone please throw Gov. Sanford a lifeline? He's gone off the deep end again.

Beyond the occasional genius, usually a genius at math, no teenager needs to enter college early. So when I saw the headline in Sunday's P & C, Educators split on cash for early grads,
I cringed. Apparently it's not enough for Sanford that today's colleges and universities have multiple remedial classes for students who can't handle college-level curriculum, now he wants South Carolina to encourage students who are not mature enough to handle the peer pressures of college life to march happily off to Columbia or Greenville or wherever, out of sight of parental control, straight into the arms of the anything-goes cultures that roam our campuses looking for victims.

What is he thinking? Probably not much. Then, Superintendent Rex chimes in to agree, proving that brain cells have not been put to work: "Jim Rex, a Democrat, said he's on board with the governor's idea as long as minor questions are addressed, such the impact on the state's on-time graduation rate. "'On the surface, I really like it,' Rex said. 'I think the concept is a good one.'"

What a self-serving statement! "Surface" is right. Does it occur to anyone else that Rex knows nothing about education? I had seen rumors that he views the post as a stepping-stone to running for governor. Now I believe them.

CCSD Superintendent McGinley was mainly concerned with district's finances: [her] main concern . . . was whether the college scholarship money would come out of the kindergarten through 12th-grade budget." Well, that's where her priorities lie.

To give the devil his due, so to speak, at least CCSD's Janet Rose made noises about the effects of such a goal on the students themselves, saying "it's not in kids' best interest to leave high school early." And "Berkeley Assistant Superintendent for Learning Services Mike Turner said district principals are unanimous in their opposition."

Well, duh.

And the incentive to make a choice that could haunt both student and parents for the rest of their lives? A mere drop in the bucket in the sea of college expenses--either $1000 or $2000. Does Sanford think our colleges and universities still act in loco parentis? Or that all of these younger students will live at home with parents? Or that students who are mentally advanced are always more emotionally mature?

What planet is he on?

Does CCSD Want Community Support or Not?

Raising eyebrows in parts of CCSD, especially in beleaguered downtown District 20, Superintendent McGinley's plan for selecting members of NPTs (Neighborhood Planning Teams) for restructuring schools indicates the usual bunker mentality. It's all about control of the process. McGinley wants to ensure that neighborhoods don't have too much power in the process. The proposed plan includes 9 of the 13 NPT members being selected by the principal alone.

Reprinted below is a letter expressing neighborhood concerns sent last week from a District 20 constituent to a CCSD School Board member:

Many downtown residents, parents of children currently in public schools and many others working for successful school alternatives downtown want to cooperate with Dr. McGinley through her plan. Unless the District 20 Constituent Board is put in a position to screen and select the members of the NPT, the plan will fail. Many of us are willing to try the plan, but we can only trust the constituent board to make sure the people involved represent the community and not just CCSD.

Many of us fear that there is no guarantee that principals or other CCSD employees will be motivated to draw any of these people on the 12-14 member NPTs from a broad pool of willing volunteers. Appointees should include those who live and know the community, and have proven themselves to be committed and passionate about raising the standards of every downtown school. In the current plan there is no assurance that the NPTs as proposed will accommodate any volunteers or people who simply express a desire to lend their local NPT some sort of special talent or experience.

Based on what we know about how CCSD has handled public participation in the recent past and what we are hearing from other meetings with the Superintendent about this plan, there is a strong belief among us downtown that the NPTs will not be allowed to freely consider all possibilities in spite of what Dr. McGinley has said. By allowing the constituent board to have the final say, it would ensure that the process is public and above board. The process from beginning to end will also be managed by a public body that is closely connected to the downtown community at large. Otherwise any outcome may be seen as rigged in advance. Individual NPTs in some cases will never be encouraged to get off the ground unless some public group like the constituent board is reporting on their progress.

If the county board considers approving this plan, please suggest to your fellow board members, at least in the case of District 20 where several very viable and active parent groups now exist, the constituent board should be screening and appointing the members of the NPTs. Who best but our neighbors to stay behind them until they complete their job?

Worse than that, however, is the "bait and switch" plan for restructuring Burke. After originally being included in school choice meetings, members of Burke's School Improvement Committee have been informed that Burke will not have an NPT nor the money that goes with the program ($6000). The latest ploy is that the so-called "AP Academy" will serve as the NPT for Burke.

Does McGinley want her plan to be successful or not?

Don't Just Talk the Talk, Rep. Clyburn!

Well, here it is again--the need for public charter schools to use public school space.

According to Friday's P & C, "On the first anniversary of becoming the third-highest ranking member of Congress, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn . . . stop[ped] at Charleston Development Academy Charter School on the peninsula, where he emphasized that school choice is an innovative learning method that must be embraced."

I've blogged before about CDA and its success [see Gadsden Green's Heroes ]
Notably, the school's principal,Cecelia Gordon Rogers did not miss the opportunity to ask for expansion, saying,"'We have outgrown our building here. Give us a little space.'"

South Carolina is one of the few states that does not provide public school space by law for public charter schools. This issue will only grow in urgency as more charter groups provide more choices.

If public charter schools do not receive public space, their long-term success will always be an issue. Only those charter groups that have several "Mr. Moneybags" on board will be able to thrive. Is that what Rep. Clyburn foresees? Will it continue to be necessary to settle the issue with expensive lawsuits? Let's hope not.

Why the Difference, CCSD?

In mid-December, CCSD proudly announced that 32 more teachers had achieved National Board Certification. Great, isn't it? Dorchester District 2 also announced that 20 of its teachers had reached that status. Great for those teachers and their students and the districts that employ them.

However.

DD2 announced the 20 names with the names of the schools where they teach.

Don't you wonder why CCSD simply announced 32 names without saying where they teach? Wouldn't you like to know if any of the district's failing schools gained NBCTs? In fact, wouldn't it be interesting to see where all of the NBCTs in CCSD teach? I do happen to know that one on the new list teaches at Stall.

Is this simply another case of "them that has, gets"?

Ok at Stall, but Not Elsewhere?

Judging from Diette Courrege's article on Stall's principal in Friday's P & C, she may now have a glimmer of how hardworking and caring many of CCSD's principals and teachers are. Judging from her report shadowing him on "Principal for a Day," Dan Connor seems to fall into that largely unsung group.

However, the anecdote about the 17-year-old with two felony arrests not only reinforces stereotypes about Stall but also shows ignorance of military standards.

According to Courrege, last fall a young man asked Principal Connor to allow him to enroll at Stall even though he was already 17 years old, had no high school credits, had two felony arrests, and had already been turned down by two other high schools. Connor, learning that his close relatives were in jail and he had no permanent home, took pity on him and took him in. Fast forward to December 6th, when Courrege reports, "Conner spent part of his day [Thursday] trying to work out a deal with an attorney that would keep this student out of jail and allow him to enlist in the military next summer [italics mine]." Unexplained is why going to jail has suddenly become an issue. Conviction? Plea bargaining? Pleading guilty?

No branch of the military takes 18 year olds with virtually no education and two felony arrests. Normally a recruit has a high school diploma with maybe a misdemeanor or two overlooked. Does Courrege think the standards for enlistees are so low? Do readers of the newspaper think so too? I guarantee that Connor, as a high school principal, knows perfectly well that the young man's chances of enlisting in the military this summer are somewhere between slim and none.

Sorry to be a party-pooper, but there remains the question of the effect of Connor's action on the rest of Stall's students and on the school's overall reputation. Two felony arrests for what? Guns? Drugs? Stealing cars? Are we to believe that he fit right in with the rest of the student body? Can you imagine the uproar from well-connected parents at a school like Wando if its principal acted similarly? She wouldn't dare.

Oh, I forgot. Stall's parents aren't well connected or wealthy. So it's ok.

Yes, there should be an educational environment for this young man, but why at Stall High School? What did Connor know would happen if he didn't say yes?Does CCSD have provision for such desperate cases? Murray Hill Academy? YouthBuild Sea Islands Charter? Anybody out there?

CCSD Superintendent: Now the Buck Stops with Her

Listen! Are those wings? Maybe a cackle or two? I know! The chickens just came home to roost! Superintendent McGinley now has the power to replace principals without consulting constituent boards; that means she also has full responsibility for what happens. And she's ready to roll.

In today's P & C McGinley hints of changes coming in administrative positions due to schools' failing performances on the state's report cards. Although the article points out that 25 schools are now rated "unsatisfactory," as usual the number is not put into context. That would be (roughly) a third of the county's schools.

Never mind that "more than half of the county's schools" have had their principals in place for less than three years, let's shuffle them again! That must mean those who have been in place for three years or more at unsatisfactory schools get to move, since McGinley promises a three-to-five-year window to prove effective leadership.

The dirty little secret is that the district has been preparing for this round of musical chairs. Schools such as Burke and North Charleston High that have been rated failing for six years MUST be restructured. No one expected a miracle to occur this year, and it didn't. The choices left to CCSD under NCLB are:

• replace all administrative professionals or
• bring in an outside agency to run the schools or
• make them into charter schools [yeah, likely] or
• have the state take over the schools [ditto].

Whatever changes McGinley makes, she will be held responsible now for the results. Well, that's assuming that three-to-five years down the road McGinley is still Superintendent.

Jordan's quoted comments pose an interesting dilemma for McGinley: she wants the Superintendent "to put those highly successful teachers [and principals] with students who need it the most," namely, those students in unsatisfactory schools where teacher turnover is high.

McGinley's got the power; does she have the guts?

The State of Education? Eloi Are Coming!

Food for thought from Intercepts of October 29 [see sidebar for link]:

"Dumber Than Dirt" and the Phenomenon of "The Guy." You don't see too many things go viral in the education corner of the blogosphere, but I'm surprised that last week's column from Mark Morford of the San Francisco Chronicle hasn't made a national splash.

The headline and subhead alone should warrant some attention: "American kids, dumber than dirt" and "Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history." But other than Northern California edu-bloggers Buckhorn Road and Right on the Left Coast, it doesn't seem to have caught on elsewhere, despite its status as the Chronicle's most e-mailed article and an incredible 517 reader comments, at last count.

It's hard to tell if Morford's article is a manifesto, a polemic, an
overreaction or a publicity stunt, but he cites the experiences of an Oakland high school teacher of his acquaintance. Here's a taste:

"But most of all, he simply observes his students, year to year,
noting all the obvious evidence of teens' decreasing abilities when confronted with even the most basic intellectual tasks, from understanding simple history to working through moderately complex ideas to even (in a couple recent examples that particularly distressed him) being able to define the words 'agriculture,' or even 'democracy.' Not a single student could do it.

"It gets worse. My friend cites the fact that, of the 6,000 high school
students he estimates he's taught over the span of his career, only a small fraction now make it to his grade with a functioning understanding of written English. They do not know how to form a sentence. They cannot write an intelligible paragraph. Recently,
after giving an assignment that required drawing lines, he realized that not a single student actually knew how to use a ruler."

Morford worries that the world's problems pale in comparison to that
of "a populace far too ignorant to know how to properly manage any of it, much less change it all for the better."

I, for one, think Morford is overstating the problem, mostly because he is extrapolating from the Oakland school system, which is the national poster child for education dysfunction. But he touches on something I think is very relevant. We are not a society of the haves and have nots, but one of the "knows" and "know nots."

Everyone has a horror story of clerks who can't make change, job applicants who can't fill out a form, and employees of all sorts who can't follow directions. But a new aspect of American life is even more troubling. I call it the phenomenon of The Guy.

The Guy doesn't have to be male. I only use it as shorthand for a phrase we use whenever we encounter people who are clearly out of their intellectual depth. When your friends complain about spending an hour on the phone with a dense tech support operator, or a bureaucrat with a public agency, or an airline ticket agent, you are likely to tell them, "You didn't talk to The Guy."

The Guy is one of the few people (maybe the only one) in any specified location who can solve problems that aren't in the technical manual, the agency guideline, or the computer instructions. He or she may or may not be the manager. It's unrelated. The Guy quickly corrects your double-billing, replaces a washer instead of tearing out your bathroom sink, prescribes the perfect medication, or immediately gets you a new desk after your principal says it will take three months. You all know The Guy, even though it's getting harder and harder to find him or her.

The gap between The Guy and everyone else is growing. Morford blames it on lots of things. Kids lack intellectual acumen. They're lazy slackers. They're overprotected and wussified. They're overexposed to and overstimulated by television, video games and the Internet. And yes, he even blames standardized tests.

At the same time, he admits, there are many, many brilliant young minds out there. Were they lucky? Private-schooled? Affluent? (I don't think so. Affluent schools aren't immune.)

No. They're self-motivated. They're The Guy. They learn even if the school is bad. They learn even if their teachers are bad. They learn even if their textbooks are out-of-date. They are increasingly becoming the linchpins of the American economy. And so, contrary to Morford's fears, we are not doomed to a new Dark Age. But we are dooming an entire generation to a world of cultural, social and economic upheaval where a handful of people can do almost anything, and the rest can do almost nothing. Maybe H.G. Wells wasn't so far off, after all.

I must admit at times the analogy with Wells's The Time Machine has crossed my mind. That would be the Eloi, not the Morlocks. Hmm. Well, not quite analogous.

CCSD: What Ever Happened to--Promotion from Within?

"North Charleston High Fights Reflect Discipline Struggle" headlines a Courrege article in Thursday's Post and Courier.


WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE SAID:

"Goodloe-Johnson's Recommendation for Interim Principal Brings Old Problems Back to North Charleston High."


Fights make headlines; failure to hire permanent administrators is boring. Yet Superintendent McGinley, with the consent of the school board, allowed a school that had achieved a disciplinary turnaround to start in August with an interim principal and two vacancies for assistant principals. One interim principal led to another; finally in mid-October the school had a real principal, and a real discipline problem. Is it any wonder?


According to McGinley, a search began "almost immediately" after Colwell's resignation (official on June 30th but announced publicly on June 13th). So much for the so-called smooth transition between Goodloe-Johnson and McGinley last summer and G-J's long goodbyes. McGinley did not officially take the reins until July 1. Colwell's resignation was announced publicly on June 13th, coinciding with G-J's goodbyes and the lame-duck period when McGinley was vacationing.


Since G-J recommended on June 13th (according to the P & C) that an interim be appointed, no search began before McGinley's official start on July 1. Was a search begun? According to the Superintendent, the applicants she interviewed were "inexperienced." Perhaps they were local personnel who knew about the vacancy.


We will never know who those applicants were, but we can see that McGinley's penchant for out-of-state hires continued. She AND the board gambled that this previously-failing high school that had begun a turn-around could succeed just as well with a temporary principal while a nationwide search ensued.


It would be an interesting study to see how the number of interim appointments has risen during the tenures of G-J and her protege McGinley. Memory suggests that the number has risen dramatically, but at what cost?


Does every administrative post require a nationwide search? Is it possible that Colwell's tenure as principal went so well because he had been at the school for almost two decades when he became principal?

While everyone interested in improving schools wishes the new principal, Eric Vernold, success, one has to wonder how a high school in rural New York compares to North Charleston. Adirondack High has under 500 students, mostly white. Boonville, New York, judging from its location, must be socked in with several feet of snow for a good portion of a long winter. It is not part of any major metropolitan area. There are places less like North Charleston, but not many in the contiguous United States.


Vernold is quoted on his second day on the job as saying, "Neighborhood problems a decade ago stayed in neighborhoods, but today they spill into schools." Where do these ideas come from? What could he know about North Charleston High "a decade ago"? Can we believe that neighborhood problems in North Charleson did not affect the high school then? The problem is that Vernold is generalizing from national data, all he can do at this point.

Unless Vernold has undisclosed knowledge of the Lowcountry, he's going to be on a steep learning curve for the rest of his first year. Let's hope that the community backs him and that North Charleston High can continue on its previous trajectory.

Surprise? CCSD Board Violates FOIA

Whatever happened to transparency needed in CCSD to improve public trust? Unfortunately, Superintendent McGinley seems to believe secrecy is her friend.

For example, her "conversations" in the districts this fall turn out to be staged opportunities to answer questions from index cards carefully culled to showcase topics she wishes to address. Her meetings with constituent district boards, except for the one in District 20, have all broken the FOIA. In District 20 the constituent board refused to break it by meeting with her behind closed doors.

Now we learn that she and the school board again broke the FOIA by discussing the restructuring of associate superintendents' responsibilities for one and one-half hours in executive session--claiming they were going over "personnel matters."

Oh, Nancy, Nancy, you have such big plans to improve the district, but you still don't get it. Such incidents combined with your sudden announcement that Memminger and James Simons Schools will be destroyed (yes, that's the correct word) are going to be your downfall. Do you want to improve the district or not?

I Told You So: $15,250 Per Hire

By my calculations eight months ago, even if all parameters had fallen into place with Teach Charleston, each hire would have cost about $5500.

See:

Tuesday, January 16, 2007: Non-Profit Does Not Mean Non-Profitable
Thursday, July 12, 2007: P & C Discovers the Broad Foundation!
Thursday, August 09, 2007: CCSD: You Mean We Can Do It Ourselves?

Now today's P & C: "District to scrap teacher recruiter: Company hired to find teachers will get $305,000." by Diette Courrege.

"The New Teacher Project was supposed to recruit at least 90 teachers for eight of Charleston County's hardest-to-staff schools, but the nonprofit only found 20 teachers for the district by the first day of school. The school board responded on Monday night by unanimously agreeing to end the district's two-year contract now, one year early."

"'If we had continued the contract [italics added], we would've wasted money,' said board Chairwoman Nancy Cook. 'We've done a better job of recruiting. They didn't follow through on what they said they could do.'" Maybe because there was no great incentive to do so, as I proved previously?

And where is the half funded by the community (as promised last January)? According to Don Kennedy, "the district has raised $27,500 in private donations to help cover that expense. . . . The state also has promised the district a $100,000 grant that could be used toward the contract cost, but the district has not yet received that money." That falls short of half, Don, and what "state" agency has promised this grant?

"Superintendent Nancy McGinley said the project didn't have a clear understanding of the state's teacher certification laws, which meant some of the recruits didn't meet state requirements." Well, whose idea was it to hire them? If they're such experts, why wouldn't they understand the certification laws?

"Charleston also is an expensive airport destination, and prospective teachers often had to pay their way, which was a deterrent to interviewing for a job here, she said." And we didn't know that last January?

"Officials initially sought the services of the New Teacher Project because they were looking for innovative ways to solve the teacher vacancy problem, McGinley said." Those would be nameless officials, right? Ones who had no clue about air expenses and state teacher certification? The school board voted to approve this boondoggle--they bear responsibility here also.

Okay, here's the best part, a McGinley quote: "larger cities are different than Charleston." Good. I hope she remembers that in the future and stops thinking in the Broad-Fellow mode.

Butter Wouldn't Melt in Their Mouths

One by one the CCSD school board proponents of charging high rent to the Charter School for Math and Science, a public school desiring to use a vacant public school building, sweetly assure the audience that they favor charter schools--and then prove it by adding an illegal quota system to the rent issue passed on a 5 to 4 vote.

If you were not at the school board meeting of August 13th but have had the time to view the two programs broadcast of the events, you are probably as annoyed as I am by the sanctimonious and hypocritical statements of members Jordan, Douglas, and Hampton-Green as well as by the Keystone-Kops aspects of the so-called participation and voting by cell phone of Meyers and Cook. These five treat their constituents as if they fell off the turnip truck yesterday!

In his successful campaign State Superintendent Jim Rex made much of what he calls "public school choice," suggesting it as a way to get successful, appealing, competing choices to parents and students without going the school-voucher route that would send public funds into private schools. He and the majority voting on CCSD's board need to take heed. Throwing up too many roadblocks to new charter schools will backfire. If the public gets tired of waiting for those choices, it will decide to support vouchers instead.

Not that the tactics being used are unexpected. Nor were they invented here in Charleston. They're being used in various forms all over the United States to halt, slow down, and cripple the growth of public charter schools. As former New York Daily News reporter Joe Williams writes in a recent issue of Education Next, apart from the more obvious legal barriers to successful charter schools being considered in state legislatures, the "'air war,'"

". . . there is also evidence of a perhaps more damaging 'ground war.' Interviews with more than 400 charter school operators from coast to coast have revealed widespread localized combat—what one administrator called 'bureaucratic sand' that is often hurled in the faces of charter schools. Indeed, as a 2005 editorial in the Washington Post described charter school obstruction in Maryland, 'It’s guerilla turf war, with children caught in the middle. Attempts to establish public charter schools in Maryland have been thwarted at almost every turn by entrenched school boards, teachers unions and principals resistant to any competition.'
The goal appears to be to stop charter schools any way possible."

For the rest of these interesting parallels to CCSD's latest tactics and tales of the turf wars, see http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/4611587.html .

To quote Hamlet on his murdering uncle, "One may smile and smile, and be a villain."

"Bureaucratic sand," indeed.