Monday, June 27, 2011

Zais's 'cynical' rejection of federal dollars questioned

Will Moredock, writing in the Columbia City Paper, makes the case that Superintendent of Education Mick Zais falls squarely in a tradition of South Carolina leadership that places demogoguery above sound policy.

To those students of our state's checkered history, Moredock's logic isn't far from the mark.

The Palmetto State Pathology has many symptoms: poor public education, low personal income, high rates of poverty, crime, divorce, infant mortality, violence toward women and children, among other things. But all of these symptoms have one origin: a world view among the majority white population focused on past resentments and indignities, incapable of facing the world as it is, rather than the way it was or might have been.

We saw a stunning example of this old thinking recently when State Superintendent of Education Mick Zais took South Carolina out of the competition for up to $50 million in federal grant money for public schools. That $50 million is part of a $200 million pot of money the U.S. Department of Education is handing out to help reform some of the lowest-performing state school systems in the country. South Carolina certainly qualifies.

The money is allocated under a federal education program called Race to the Top. The state applied for one of the Race to the Top grants under previous state superintendent Jim Rex, a Democrat. Zais, a Republican, campaigned last year against South Carolina’s participation in the Race to the Top program. The white people of the state elected him and Zais made good on his word. He walked away from millions of dollars that might have supported teachers, schools and students in this woebegone state.

People outside South Carolina probably have a hard time understanding this decision, but I suspect it is popular enough among Zais’ supporters. It hearkens back to the day two years ago when then-Gov. Mark Sanford tried to reject federal stimulus money, even as the state floundered in 10-percent unemployment.

Zais justified his decision, saying that taking federal education money was tantamount to taking “pieces of silver in exchange for strings attached to Washington.” This is strange logic, indeed, coming from a retired Army general who spent his career taking orders from Washington. Zais’ career also includes a stint as president of tiny Newberry College in the Upstate. His resume does not reflect any experience in public education.

Moredock calls Zais's decision and his justification of it "cynical beyond words," but he notes that our leaders have done precisely this for generations.

When it is convenient, they will readily disparage federal money as corrupt and manipulative. It is a charade that dates back at least to the New Deal and it elicits strains of pride among whites who still revere the idea of secession and belligerence toward Washington.

I call it a charade because the same politicians who spend their careers denouncing and denigrating everything that emanates from the national capital would dance of their Confederate granddaddy’s grave for the opportunity to go to Congress. And white voters who support those politicians who spurn federal stimulus and education money will reelect another politician who “brings home the bacon” to build a popular road, airport or bridge (See: Ravenel, Arthur)
...
What were the federal “strings” that were so onerous that they made tens of millions of dollars unpalatable to the superintendent of education? He didn’t specify, but it is hard to believe that running schools the Washington way could be any worse than they way we have been doing it for the last 140 years.

As Andy Brack wrote Statehouse Report: “Maybe we need these so-called government strings. Why? Because what’s been happening so far with us at the bottom of education lists hasn’t been working out that well.”

But that’s tradition and in the Palmetto State, tradition trumps all.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment