Cobb-Hunter raises equal-standards argument in voucher bill

Although House Ways and Means Chairman Brian White told WJBF yesterday that he has enough votes to pass his $37 million voucher-and-tax-deduction bill from the House, Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter has raised concerns about using public dollars without public accountability.

At the committee meeting, State Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, said the plan also doesn't hold private schools to the same standards that public schools are required to meet. She asked supporters, "Why are we still shifting public dollars to private schools but we don't want private schools to be judged by the same criteria?"

Apparently, Cobb-Hunter's question in the committee meeting wasn't answered; no answer was reported by WJBF.

Cobb-Hunter wasn't alone in raising concerns about the bill:

Jackie Hicks, state president of the South Carolina Education Association, says, "We want reforms. Families of children want reforms. So why not focus on reforms instead of taking money and giving it to private schools? Because when you talk about giving each student a $4,000 voucher, then you are taking that money out of the public school system."

Again, WJBF offers no data to respond to Hicks's concern.

One has to imagine that Cobb-Hunter's question has an answer, and that Hicks's concern has a response. Perhaps our media are exhausted of the debate and are waiting for new news to report. Look: Squirrel!

Meantime, WJBF stopped at Covenant Classical Christian School and found two private-school parents, including one who teaches at the school, who are thrilled to get paid for their choice to send their children to private schools.

"Mine! Mine! Mine! All mine! You can't have any!" the wealthy parents said, clutching at their publicly-funded vouchers and racing past the long line of poor peoples' children holding outdated textbooks and broken pencils. "My children are more important than your children! And give me my tax deduction!"

No, I'm kidding. That last bit in italics didn't really happen. The jury will strike that testimony from the record. Here's what WJBF really reported from the two parents who love the voucher bill.

Edye Moran has two sons at Covenant Classical Christian School in Columbia and says families make a lot of sacrifices to send their children to private school. She's happy to hear about the bill. "We believe that, as citizens who pay taxes, we should have the ability to have a choice like this," she says.

Yes, and hundreds of thousands of other parents who also pay taxes wish they had the option of sending their children to traditional public schools whose programs, services, faculty needs and classroom resources are fully-funded; but we live in South Carolina, and South Carolina's lawmakers don't make that choice available to them.

Deborah Bian-Lingle, a mother of three daughters educated in a private school, says, "It's not going to hurt the taxpayer. What it's going to do is assist parents to be able to place their children in the school of their choice."

In addition to teaching French at the private academy whose parents stand to collect huge benefits from the voucher bill, Bian-Lingle is a Richland County GOP precinct officer.

Indeed, it doesn't hurt our taxpayers, except that a smaller General Fund means fewer resources for public education AND every other public service that's funded by the General Fund, which means that local counties and municipalities may have to raise local property taxes to cover the costs of local programs and services; and higher local property taxes will land on the backs of individual property owners, because large corporations don't have to pay property taxes in many case, thanks to the incentive package crafted by lawmakers to persuade those corporations to operate here.

So I guess the voucher bill will hurt taxpayers in the long run, after all. Hmm. It's strange how things look different when you consider the long-term view and others' perspectives.

The State offered a little more detail of the committee debate, but not much more.

The committee approved an amendment requiring that benefiting private schools post online results of students' standardized tests.

Republicans refused attempts to require they use the same standardized tests as public schools.

That's the only way to get a true performance comparison, said Rep. Michael Anthony, D-Union.

Why wouldn't private academies want to use the same standardized tests as traditional public schools, if we're going to be funding private education at those schools? Is there something to hide?

Watch: Today's press conference on educators' salaries

Thanks to the South Carolina Education Association for the links to this pair of videos!

This is brilliant, and I'm hopeful that all 19 of my readers will forward this blog link far, far, far and wide, wide, wide to friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, long-lost cousins, brand-new acquaintances and people you encounter at gas stations, convenience stores and the Piggly Wiggly.

Remember: When educators organize, educators and their students win.

Patrick Hayes and Lindsey Egloff with Harry Ott and Jackie Hicks, Part 1.


Patrick Hayes and Lindsey Egloff with Harry Ott and Jackie Hicks, Part 2.

Far and wide, friends and neighbors. Spread the word.

Hicks: Where would state scores be without NBC teachers?

This week's edition of the Free Times of Columbia takes up the topic of national board certification and the stipends paid to educators who earn that credential.

It's a topic of discussion again because, just as we've seen every year for the past six or eight years, lawmakers looking for more ways to undermine and dismantle public education are trying to eliminate those stipends.

I have to give tremendous credit to the Free Times for covering the issue. The state's major newspapers, ahem, seem to have a hard time grasping and giving coverage to the matter.

To offer a little general background, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards has been around since the mid-1980s, thanks to an effort begun in those days to improve educator quality. Great goal, right?

So the board created a credential -- a certificate -- that required a pretty labor-intensive process to earn. Simply applying costs a chunk of money, two or three thousand dollars or more. It's a three-year process. It requires a ton of research, writing and documentation, even a process of filming an educator's work in the classroom.

And the whole thing is peer-reviewed.

Which makes it completely worth the additional funds that South Carolina's lawmakers chose to invest back in the late 1990s -- hey, that was while Governor Jim Hodges and Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum were our leaders -- in the form of grants to cover the application costs and stipends paid to successful candidates.

Now, here we are:

State coffers may be booming thanks to a rebounding economy, but some teachers across South Carolina could lose out because of proposed cuts put forward by the House Ways and Means Committee.

Last week, the committee voted to halt the funding for at least a year of an annual supplement paid out to public K-12 educators who have successfully completed a grueling, three-year National Board Certification process.

Teachers already enrolled in the program wouldn’t see their supplements end, but new teachers who want to attempt certification would not be allowed to receive the money.

That supplement, doled out in $7,500 and $10,000 annual bumps to some of the top teachers in the state, costs $68 million a year. There’s no projection available for how much more it would cost to add newly board-certified teachers to the program.

Keeping new enrollees from benefiting from their increased credentials comes as the Ways and Means Committee voted for a budget that was nearly $1 billion higher than the last fiscal year’s budget, thanks to increased tax revenue collections.

S.C. Superintendent of Education Mick Zais and some legislators, such as House Education Committee chairman Phil Owens (R-Easley), don’t believe that it makes economic sense to continue the program. Zais’ office, supported by several legislators, contends that there is no direct correlation between the millions of dollars paid in national board supplements and student achievement increases.

In short: no bang, big bucks.

Owens said that he would like to see the $68 million redirected back into baseline student funding, so that all the teachers across the state could benefit “and not just the ones whose lives allow them to go through the [certification] process.”

Owens argued that in South Carolina’s “current economic state” it doesn’t make sense to keep spending money in this manner. He also said that South Carolina’s teacher pay is $300 higher than the Southeastern average.

Let's pause and unpack that last little nugget.

So the information being offered to the media is that the average teacher salary in South Carolina is $300 higher than the average teacher salary across all the states in the Southeast. That's impressive -- is it, really? -- until you take it apart and look at the numbers.

In South Carolina, educators who hold certain jobs and credentials get stipends -- additional amounts of money, above the base contract salary, that reflect the additional roles and responsibilities they accept. Coaches and band directors, for example, get stipends. Some student group advisors, like student newspaper advisors, also get stipends. And our national board certified teachers receive stipends.

I don't know if this is still funded, but at one time, teacher specialists -- master teachers who were hired to travel across various regions of the state, "coaching" teachers in consistently low-performing, high-priority schools -- were paid great "bonuses" equal to half of their base contract salary. (Which, I thought, brought them much closer to what educators in South Carolina should be paid.)

When calculating the "average" salary of teachers in South Carolina, our leaders pack into the formula all of those stipends and bonuses on top of the base contract salary.

What's the base contract salary? That's the dollar figure established by the state of South Carolina in its salary schedule for teachers who hold bachelor's degrees, master's degrees and doctorates, or master's degree plus so many graduate hours, etc. The salary schedule assigns dollar figures to these categories at each "step" of the salary schedule -- I think there are 22 steps -- and these "steps" are supposed to correlate to an educator's years of experience (up to the top step, and then you just stay on that step until you retire).

In an honest world, the state's average teacher salary would include only those dollars paid to teachers as base contract salary. But we don't live in an honest world; we live in South Carolina, where our lawmakers throw in everything plus the kitchen sink -- all the local salary supplements, all the stipends, all the bonuses, every jot and tittle they can pack into the bag.

Which means, friends and neighbors, that the resulting figure is waaaaay inflated beyond a real average teacher salary in our state. When anyone tells you that our average teacher salary is $300 higher than the Southeastern average, back them up and ask how South Carolina fares in that ranking when you take out all the condiments and fixin's. You might find that the sumptuous barbecue dinner they're trying to sell you is little more than a dry chicken leg and a hush puppy. Better to know that up front.

Currently, the state spends $1,880 on each student annually, despite state law requiring a number closer to $2,700. The committee’s budget plan would increase that amount to close to $2,100. The Legislature would have to vote in a special law, called a proviso, to circumvent the higher amount; it has consistently done so in recent years.

Owens, in lock step with Zais,

Well, that tells us a lot, right there...

Owens, in lock step with Zais, has argued that a better way to reward good teaching is to implement “pay for performance” raises open to all teachers.

Democrats in the House have pledged to fight the issue on the floor. And if it should get to the Senate, Owens should expect an even chillier reception.

Sen. John Courson (R-Columbia) chairs the Senate Education Committee and has already vowed to fight against dropping the annual supplement.

“We are currently number three nationally in the number of National Board certified teachers,” said Courson, who sees the supplement as an integral piece of the state’s economic future.

And thank God for that. It's nice to say we're third in the nation for some good reason, isn't it? Usually, it's some rotten ranking, like third in the nation in cardiac incidents related to pork fat.

Courson worries that if the supplement disappears, there would be an exodus of some of the state’s best-prepared teachers for greener economic pastures.

You think? North Carolina pays national board certified teachers a 12 percent differential above the bachelor's degree; it only pays a 10 percent differential above the bachelor's degree for teachers with master's degrees. If I were one of those teachers in any one of our counties bordering North Carolina, I bet I'd be keeping an eye on opportunities across the border.

Jackie B. Hicks, president of the S.C. Education Association, wonders how the Legislature paid for the supplements during the lean times of the Great Recession, but now wants to cut them.

Excellent question. We found the money when times were bad, so why cut off the stipends now, when our state is "surging"?

We are "surging," aren't we? I mean, I heard Governor Nikki Haley say we were "surging," so I figured that meant we were well on the road to recovery. Apparently, the Obama administration's economic policies are working overtime for South Carolina, so good that we're "surging." At least, that's what Haley said. "Surging."

Hicks responded tersely to sallies by Zais and Owens that there’s not been direct student improvement due to the money spent on the certification supplements with a question.

“Where would South Carolina’s scores be without them?” she asks.

Hicks, while not satisfied with the state’s standardized testing scores and national rankings, said she thought they would be lower without the teachers that have gone through the certification process. She also wonders how pay-for-performance would work for special education teachers working with some of the most seriously affected student populations, as some of those students have little realistic chance of meeting grade-level expectations.

Spoken like someone with some years of experience in South Carolina's public school classrooms.

And what a powerful final summation from the Free Times editors:

Crystal ball: Cutting National Board supplements might make some fiscal sense, but it makes no political sense. One Republican representative who supports cutting the money said he knew it was going nowhere in the current political and economic climate. That being said, observers are wondering about the future of K-12 education in the state when education is so clearly undervalued by so many state leaders.

Read that again: "when education is so clearly undervalued by so many state leaders."

Ain't that the truth.

Zais brings back more student tests; teachers wonder why

Because we don't test our students enough, and because the law requires it.

Parents of third-, fourth-, sixth- and seventh-graders, listen up: Your children haven't been suffering enough stress lately with fewer teachers and larger class sizes, so our state Superintendent of Education Mick Zais has the solution: More testing.

Trust me, this is going to work like a charm: Get ready for night sweats, stomach aches, bad dreams and nausea.

And when you write to Superintendent Zais, remember to thank him.

South Carolina Education Superintendent Mick Zais’ budget recommendation could mean reinstating some standardized testing South Carolina students have missed for a couple of years.

At the start of May students across the state will take the Palmetto Assessment of State Standards test, including reading comprehension, math, social studies and science. But only those in fifth and eighth grade will get an early dose of accountability, taking a separate writing section, at the end of March.

Since 1998 state law has mandated writing assessments for all students in the third through eighth grade. In the 2008-2009 school year writing became a stand alone section with a score independent of reading when the PASS test was implemented.

But in the past two years, because of budget cuts, the General Assembly opted to let kids in grades three, four, six and seven off the hook, saving $1.5 million each year. That money was instead distrusted to districts, based on their size, to be used wherever they needed it.

The state spends $14 to 15 million each year in standardized testing.

With state tax revenues up and the economy slowly recuperating, Zais said it’s time to get back to the law.

[Psst. General Zais. Over here.]

[Hey. I'm lovin' the law-and-order schtick. "It's the law, it's time to get back to the law." That stuff kills in the rural districts. You keep that up, you're lookin' at a landslide in 2014 -- that is, unless you're ready for the big leagues and you decide to primary Lindsay Graham. Catch my drift? Anyway, I got a hot tip for you.]

[There's this whole other law: the Education Finance Act. It's been around a while, like, 34 years. It's got this formula in it, supposed to tell lawmakers how much money to appropriate for a base student cost every year. I mean, it's a law, just like this testing thing you're pushing again. Like this year, the EFA says this base student cost is supposed to be almost $2,800 per child, but the legislature's only looking at funding $1,700 and some per child. That's so weak. They don't get it.]

[So, I'm thinkin', because you're the law-and-order guy -- you know, steppin' up to the plate and tellin' everybody, It's the law, you've got to do this testing like the law demands -- well, I'm thinkin', if you work that EFA base student cost into your schtick, 'cause it's the law, too, then lawmakers will have to man up and make it happen.]

[I mean, what else are they gonna do? Break the law? After the law-and-order guy -- a United States Army General, no less, like Chuck Norris or Steven Seagal -- lays down the law and tells them, This is the law. In South Carolina, we follow the law, whether it's testing or base student cost, you know? 'Cause that's who we are. Do work!]

[Man, I can see it now. You tell 'em straight up, this is how it is, and they get in line behind the law-and-order guy, and there's no way you won't go to the majors in 2014: Senator Zais. You gotta admit, that's got a ring. Law-and-order. That's your ticket. You need to put Jay-Dub on that, like, now.]

Education Department spokesman Jay W Ragley said writing is, by law, the department’s second priority after reading and that having a standardized test is both a teaching tool and a way to make sure writing really is being taught in each grade.

“If writing is not going to be assessed then perhaps there’s not as much an emphasis on writing because there’s not an assessment at the end of the year,” Ragley said. “And so we’ve heard from English language arts teachers that we’d like to get back on the regular schedule of assessing our students every year in writing so there are not in lapses in progress.”

He said it’s “critically important” for teachers to be able to look at each student’s previous writing test scores and rubrics to see the areas they will need to help each pupil improve.

I'm glad Ragley mentioned the critical importance of teachers in the testing question.

And, coincidentally, one happened to be available to comment on the question:

But Jackie Hicks, the president of the South Carolina Education Association and a teacher in York County for 28 years, said standardized test score don’t help customize teaching.

Mm. That doesn't really support the whole "we need more testing" theme. And she's been a teacher for 28 years...

She said that each fall teachers get writing samples for each student from the previous year and that by the time information from standardized tests come in, they already know their students strengths and weaknesses.

So, the results of the big testing process come up a day late and a dollar short. That's definitely not a ringing endorsement from the educator community for more testing.

“I think we are focusing too much on standardized tests. The teachers themselves do an excellent job in the classroom to analyze the child’s writing and have the understanding of child development,” Hicks said.

I'm definitely getting the impression that education professionals -- experts in their field -- believe the additional testing is unnecessary, inefficient and duplicative. And if it's duplicative, I know Governor Nikki Haley will want in on this issue.

She also worries that adding more “big test” dates adds anxiety for the younger children, especially third and fourth graders, who she thinks need to first get a solid handle on reading skills.

Whoa. Education experts believe the testing, in addition to being unnecessary, inefficient and duplicative, may also be harmful to the children?

Whose idea was this additional testing? I'd hate to be that guy.

“In third grade what the teachers and the community should want more is to see how well the child is doing on reading and their understanding and comprehension. That’s important first,” Hicks said. “If they can read and comprehend they can really learn the other subjects and the writing will mature.”

Game, set and match. But wait:

On top of that, there’s the fear that with each standardized test component teachers feel pressured to teach students how to pass the test, not necessarily who to become better writers.

Man, o man.

I hope this doesn't discourage Superintendent Zais from pursuing his "it's the law" theme at the legislature. He might really make some headway on getting a modern-day base student cost, even if he has to give up the unnecessary, inefficient, duplicative, harmful and misdirected testing agenda.

Fingers crossed...

Parents and educators pack the Sumter board meeting

The review by the Sumter Item of Monday's Sumter County board of trustees meeting was interesting for what it said and what it didn't say. After reading numerous emails from parents and educators in the area throughout today, I went back to re-read the Item's coverage before offering commentary.

The comments of parents and educators continue to be enlightening, and they're attracting the attention of other educators around the state.

A little research into the ideology and reach of the Broad Foundation and the Broad Superintendents Academy sheds a great deal more -- and very valuable -- light on the matter.

The Item's coverage begins,

More than 160 teachers, nurses, principals and other members of the community came out for Monday's meeting of the Sumter School District Board of Trustees.

Some may have been there for the student and staff recognition, but given the response during public participation, many were there to share solidarity as six people came up to speak about SWEET 16, financial questions and communication concerns. One state teachers' association leader said she was there to represent those fearful of speaking out.

Per board policy, the members could only receive information Monday.

"Within 48 hours, the superintendent will respond in writing to every individual who addressed the board," said Shelly Galloway, spokesperson for the school district.

Correspondents explain that, perhaps as a matter of board policy or custom, anyone hoping to speak to the board was required to complete and submit a personal information card in order to be added to the speaking order.

From the dozens of emails that have addressed this school district and its issues alone during the past week, I've seen clearly that education professionals, in particular, feel intimidated and are fearful of retribution for speaking out, even to some mid-level administrators in the district. It stands to reason, then, that being asked to submit a personal information card before speaking to a public board might add a layer of anxiety to the situation.

And, by board policy or custom, only 15 minutes is allowed for public participation on the agenda. I'm sure that accommodation might be made if many more citizens ask to speak to the board at these meetings.

But it sounds as if this sort of meeting, or its agenda, is not designed to encourage input from the public. It clearly isn't designed to yield answers to citizens' questions, as it appears that none were given. Helpfully, the Item quotes the district's public information officer's explanation that speakers are given responses in writing later.

If 200 interested citizens packed a district office to hear questions put to their publicly-elected board of trustees, whose policy is only to hear questions and concerns but not to respond except in writing, and except directly to those who speak, then I imagine that the nearly 200 interested citizens may have left the building feeling unsatisfied.

Except that this isn't exactly what happened.

However, Randolph Bynum, vowing his committment to the Sumter district, said after the regularly scheduled meeting that he was not approached beforehand and some of the information shared was not factual.

Obviously, I believe in a free press. But if the board's policy is to respond to questions and concerns only in writing and only directly to those who raised them, how came the superintendent to answer those concerns to a reporter after the meeting? If policy might be bent to speak to the reporter, might it just as well have been bent to offer a response to the gathering of 200 interested citizens?

On one hand, it's a small thing. Reporters ask some questions and publish some answers. On the other hand, only six speakers reportedly addressed the board, so written responses will be sent only to six individuals -- not to the 200 interested citizens who packed the district office in hopes of hearing questions asked and answered. A little more information, freely shared, might go a long way toward resolving questions in a circumstance as charged as this seems to be.

For this service, from this perspective, we should thank the Item for asking the questions that it did. But in reporting the superintendent's view that "some of the information was not factual," without pursuing to learn which information was accurate and which was not, the report leaves citizens as much in the dark after the meeting as before the meeting.

The onslaught of public participation, he said, appeared to be an effort to incite those fearful of the unknown.

"Incite" is a loaded word. Its definitions include "to stir up" and "to persuade (someone) to act."

Respectfully, the comments of dozens of parents and educators suggest that the implementation of a complex new teacher evaluation instrument has done much "to stir up" feelings about the new direction it represents. If that's the case, citizens may have needed little persuasion to act; drawing attention to the time and date of the meeting may have been all that was necessary.

Barney Gadson was the first person to speak and only one in support of SWEET16, Systematic Way to Ensure Effective Teaching 16, the instructional assessment the district has implemented to help design professional development.

"As my grandmother once said, if you keep doing what you've been doing, you keep getting what you've been getting," he said. "We want all children to have the best education possible, and we want to help the teachers be better, which in turn helps the students and the community. I support you and what you're doing, and so does the group that follows me. Press on."

The Item doesn't identify the speaker as an educator or parent, as it clearly identified the remaining speakers; the information might have been helpful to understand his perspective. Readers are often more skillful at discernment than is credited.

Parent Nicole Williams, however, said she is not impressed by the instructional evaluation tool. Williams said she and her followers could not find SWEET 16 being used in any other states.

"I think most of us can agree if I take various parts in cars and put them together into a Frankenstein vehicle, I can put 'Cadillac' on it, but I can't use the safety standards for the vehicle," she said. "Where is the research that backs it?" She wondered if SWEET16 would benefit teachers.

She also is concerned about the board being "good stewards of finance resources." She gave a couple of examples of the district's spending on fabric and dry cleaners asking how those "improve the education" for the students.

Williams's observation that "Sweet 16" doesn't exist outside Sumter County is valid, so far as internet search engines can tell. Her concerns, and the concerns of another parent who spoke, about district finances ought to be easily proved founded or unfounded by posting finance policies and line-item budget reports, with details, online. After all, we're talking about public revenue being expensed by public employees. Aren't budgets and budget reports considered public documents?

The Item reports,

Jackie Hicks, president of the SCEA, said she was speaking because many teachers were afraid to speak, something she said is currently prevalent in the district.

She quoted one teacher as saying, "This year has been horrible. My love for teaching has been tested. The extra busy work has interfered with planning interesting activities for the students. The amount of work I take home has affected my family. The extra money has affected my finances. At the beginning of the school year, teachers were heard and dared to be vocal, but more and more I'm seeing silence take over. I'm tired, disappointed and hopeless."

She also voiced members' concerns about the Broad Academy's involvement with Sumter County, the four furlough days and no raises for teachers in three years.

Superintendent Bynum is a graduate of the program that identifies and prepares leaders to go into urban school districts and improve education. Some area teachers and community members are distrustful of the Broad philosophy and it could come into play locally.

But the report didn't mention what many -- many -- correspondents have characterized as the most charged moment of the meeting, with words like "prolonged applause and a standing ovation" after hearing a teacher's perspective as part of Hicks's remarks.

Last week, two Republican presidential primary debates were held in South Carolina, and in each of them, comments by former Speaker Newt Gingrich earned standing ovations. Multiple media outlets during the course of the week highlighted the ovations as unique in the history of presidential debates, and coverage of the candidate and the primary race uniformly featured references to them.

So it's striking that after a meeting that drew a packed house, during which the single instance of a standing ovation occurred -- and "sustained" applause appeared to release pent-up emotions of crowded parents and educators -- in response to a teacher sharing the pained perspective of another teacher aloud, that event didn't rate a mention in the next day's edition.

Perhaps it's enough that the article included Hicks's report that 75 percent of her members in Sumter County had "contacted her office with complaints."

Two months ago, a poll showed that 75 percent of Americans agreed with President Barack Obama's decision to withdraw American troops from Iraq. In today's political and social climate, it's difficult to unite 75 percent of a group to take an action or agree with a policy. But the Item's coverage suggests the decision to withdraw American troops from Iraq, and the decision to implement a complex new teacher evaluation instrument, accomplished the same difficult goal. That's significant.

The report returns to additional observations that bend the board's policy on answering speakers' questions directly in writing rather than aloud in its public forum.

Bynum did have a few thoughts after the meeting as did Chairman Addison.

"Quite a few things were untrue and had no factual basis, especially the finances pieces and the SWEET 16 not being researched," Bynum said.

Again, neither the Item nor the superintendent identified which concerns raised by speakers were true or untrue, but he emphasized the general topic of "finances pieces" and "'Sweet 16' not being researched."

If research exists to support "Sweet 16" in the form that the administration has implemented it, it seems clear and obvious that education professionals and parents would appreciate to see and study that research. They seem not to be asking for research that supports the model in any component parts, because "Sweet 16" is a package and has been delivered to education professionals as a package, not as a collection of component parts from various schools of thought in teacher evaluation.

In the interest of answering many questions, the administration might consider posting its supportive research online in a prominent space on the front page of the district's website, making it easily accessible to all.

"I'm sure every parent and every teacher knows if a student doesn't understand it the first time, you reteach it. What extra research is required? ...

Whether the superintendent intended to mean that education professionals didn't understand the presentation of "Sweet 16" in its initial delivery and must be re-taught, or that parents don't understand the model and must be re-taught, the impression is clear and unfortunate in its condescension.

Even if he was referring to "reteaching" as a routine instructional strategy in a classroom, and meant to say that this strategy is one of the fundamental elements of the "Sweet 16" instrument, the reference is misleading. Re-teaching as an instructional strategy is an old one; even student teachers are familiar with it.

Again, "Sweet 16" is a package and was delivered to education professionals as a package. Thus, it's reasonable to expect that the package has been tested and researched, unless this is, as many parents and educators believe, simply a complex and stressful experiment being imposed without input from parents and educators in Sumter County.

He also thinks the teacher associations should have set up a meeting with him beforehand instead of bringing their concerns first into the public forum.

"That piece tonight was choreographed to incite people that have a fear of the unknown, although SWEET 16 should be known to everybody and comfortable by now," Bynum said. "In my opinion, if they were serious about their concerns for the district, they would have scheduled a meeting with me and my cabinet. The goal was to use a public forum to help increase membership."

Responding to the reference to a "fear of the unknown," one correspondent posted the following comment today:

First of all, I was not there because of the fear of the unknown. My fear is very well known and established through the accounts of daily life at school told by my own children. Mr. Bynum, DON'T YOU CALL MY KIDS LIARS! Second, his repeated remarks about setting up meetings with him beforehand and/or meetings with him and his cabinet that would not be public forums...that,in my opinion, validates exactly what we are hearing from the teachers....that they are NOT TO CONTACT THE SCHOOL BOARD! We as parents are the public and the school board and Mr. Bynum and his CABINET serve the public taxpayers. DO NOT TRY TO SQUELCH COMMMUNICATION THAT WE DESERVE TO HEAR! This is not about a Fortune 500 company with a private board of officers! HOW DARE YOU??????????? This is about our children! I hope everyone reading The Item article can read between the lines and see what he is really saying. And one last thing....Who is the EVERYBODY that should know and be comfortable with Sweet 16 by now???? Surely he is not referring to the parents/taxpayers because it is news to us! We need people to contact the school board and stand firm behind our teachers. Our kids are liars and our teachers ARE NOT LIARS! WE NEED TO BE INCITED AND EXCITED!!!!

As this comment is reflective of several dozen that followed publication of the Item's report, it would appear that a great deal is known, and that citizens are reacting to what they know more than to what they don't know.

He said another piece "confounds" him.

"Some people who never wanted me here in the first place are trying to drag out all types of information to alienate or subvert initiatives in place," Bynum said. "Broad's Superintendent Academy doesn't have a brain washing instrument. You don't come out of it after 10 months and want to destroy every school you enter or alienate teachers. It is the finest superintendent academy in the country. Superintendent graduates who have been in place three or more years, their districts outperform districts of similar size of non-Broad graduates. Lastly, Broad had absolutely nothing to do with SWEET 16."

It is reassuring to learn that the Broad Foundation and its programs did not develop the "Sweet 16" instrument; but the question left by that knowledge is amplified by it: Who did?

Finally, the claim that Broad Superintendents Academy certificants "outperform" their counterparts who do not hold Broad certificates has been examined by Education Week magazine, as reported in its June 7, 2011, edition.

There is little or no independent research evaluating the impact of Broad Academy graduates on all the districts where they are placed. The foundation itself looks at five measures of student achievement for academy superintendents who have been in place for three or more years, including students’ academic-proficiency levels, achievement gaps, and graduation rates. The foundation then compares those measures with those of demographically similar districts in the state and with state averages.

Based on its calculations, 65 percent of graduates who have been serving as superintendents for three or more years are outperforming comparison groups on raising state reading and math test scores, closing achievement gaps, and raising graduation rates.

Education Week examined a small slice of performance in six districts with long-serving Broad superintendents: reading and math scores on standardized tests for 3rd graders and 8th graders. In most cases, the results on that measure were mixed, even within a district.

"Standing ovation" for teacher's perspective at Sumter meeting

Early feedback from tonight's Sumter Board of Trustees meeting reports that Jackie Hicks, president of the SCEA, carried the perspective of Sumter's classroom professionals to the table, a perspective that earned applause and a standing ovation from approximately 200 parents, educators and others. Writes one commenter tonight,

THANK YOU JACKIE HICKS for coming to our board meeting to say what we can't. The applause and STANDING OVATION tells you all you need to know about what's happening. Please stick with us through this, I think it takes a teacher to understand what teachers suffer. I don't know many of us who can afford to represent ourselves and risk losing our job. Thank you to the SCEA for representing us all.

But it's also clear that many more speakers like Hicks are necessary to continue bringing attention to educators' concerns.

Only one speaker on the public participation list spoke in favor of "Sweet 16," the complex new teacher evaluation instrument. Others reportedly drew attention to expenses on the district's credit card, including one "at a truck stop in Manning on New Year's Eve." Though the questions were raised, no answers were offered in response.

And one parent delivered copies of the educators' comments left at Educating South Carolina's blog posts on "Sweet 16" for board members.

Still, there's no indication that the board will respond publicly to what it heard. If the Sumter Item reports on the event, it'll be recapped here.

In the meantime, feel free to post your own feedback to what was said and heard, what you'd like the board to take into consideration, and what action you hope to see the board take.

UPDATE:

I attended tonight and was amazed at the indifference given to obviously conerned parents - who, I might add, showed the patience and restraint of Saints. When we leave this earth, our lasting legacy will be the children we raise and leave to run this country. Granted, education MUST start in the home, but educators see, interact with, and mentor our children when we cannot. How can they gain parental assistance if they cannot even gain the respect or trust of the administration? Dishonest, unethical, and narcisitic attitudes will not solve our problems. We collectively must forge on to win the day. National attention (Oh, say Bill O'reilly) might be able to cut through the spin zone to make an impartial observation. Here, however, I believe that will be hard to do.

Hicks: Citizens should be serious about preparing youth

If educators didn't know much about then-Rep. Nikki Haley in 2010, they know a lot more about her today. Jackie Hicks, president of The South Carolina Education Association, told the South Carolina Radio Network this week that Haley's vetoes of state education funds didn't "sit well with educators."

Of the $213 million dollars in spending that Governor Nikki Haley vetoed in the state budget proposal, $56 million of it was added for education at the end of the session by lawmakers using higher-than-expected revenue collected this year. Haley said the state had already increased education funding by more than $100 million dollars.

Haley’s veto does not sit well with educators, including South Carolina Education Association President Jackie Hicks. She says, even with the increase, spending levels are not what they should be.

The SCEA, the state's largest association of education professionals, has a political action committee that supports candidates who support public education. Under the administration of Governor Mark Sanford, the organization drafted a "definition of support for public education" to spell out what "supporting" public education means.

Consistently under-funding public schools was not part of the definition.

Hicks says if the state expects to grow its economy by attracting more corporations that offers high-paying, high-tech jobs, they must be willing to invest in a well-prepared workforce. She said that starts with investing in young people by putting more dollars into public education. Hicks says lawmakers have to understand that investing in the public schools is an investment toward growing the state’s economy.

Haley says educators must use existing dollars more efficiently, by using less dollars at the administrative level and putting more money in the classroom. School officials say they have already trimmed administrative budgets significantly and they need higher funding to avoid further cuts and teacher layoffs.

Hicks says it is important that citizens across the state get serious about preparing our greatest asset: youth; giving them the education they need and deserve in order to take their place as productive citizens in the challenging and competitive global economy.

The South Carolina Radio Network's webpage features audio of this week's interview with Hicks.

South Carolina races to the bottom in school funding

While we wait for Her Excellency the Governor to issue her vetoes, Jackie B. Hicks of The South Carolina Education Association offers some suggestions for the most appropriate uses of the revenue windfall that our Board of Economic Advisors delivered to the legislature early this month. In a column published in the Charleston Post & Courier and elsewhere, Hicks suggests that investment in public education might yield long-lasting dividends.

When the state collected more tax revenues than it projected, the Legislature decided to allot some of the new revenue to our public schools, an investment the South Carolina Education Association has lobbied for.

Gov. Nikki Haley said, "Give it back to the taxpayer."

Let's see who's right, from an economic perspective:

If every penny were returned to taxpayers, each would receive about $25.

That would allow them to buy a couple of movie tickets and a large Coke. Or if discretionary spending is not possible, it could cover a tiny part of the family's weekly grocery bill.

On the other hand, if every penny were invested in improving our high school graduation rate and early childhood education, according to economists, the state would save more than it would have to spend on government programs to support poorly educated residents.

After all, as a result of inadequate school funding, South Carolina now has among the lowest graduation rates in the nation.

Fewer than four out of every 10 high school students graduate.

So consider the economic benefits if we use the money to improve our high school graduation rate:

--High school dropouts are more than twice as likely to be unemployed and three times more likely to receive welfare assistance, costing South Carolina millions of dollars each year for government funded assistance programs.

--Improved education and more stable employment greatly increase tax revenue, such as a return of at least $7 for every dollar invested in pre-kindergarten education and more than $11.

--In South Carolina, the economy would gain more than $11 for every dollar it invests in public schools.

--Forty-one percent of all prisoners have not completed high school, compared to 18 percent of the general adult population. The annual cost of incarcerating an individual is about $32,000, while the annual cost of a quality public education is about $11,000.

--A 5 percent increase in the male graduation rate would save millions of dollars in crime-related expenses.

--Mortality decreases for every additional year in schooling by 7.2 percent for men and 6 percent for women; and the chances of optimum health is up to eight times higher for citizens with eighteen years of education versus only seven.

--Graduating from high school improves the quality of health, reduces dependence on public health programs by 60 percent, and cuts by six times the rate of alcohol abuse.

--The annual public health costs are $2,700 for high school dropouts, compared to $1,000 for high school graduates, and $170 for college graduates.

It is past time we faced the fact that South Carolina's schools are dramatically under-funded. Since the financial crisis of 2008, our schools have lost more than $484 million in the state's general fund and another $100 million loss in EIA funding.

Our spending on K-12 schools is lower even than Georgia, Florida and Virginia, all states that rank toward the bottom of the nation.

Gov. Haley should know that investing in public education will save the state millions of dollars and allow our children to compete for the high skill jobs of the future.

Educators praise voucher defeat (2011 edition)

Everybody's heard Einstein's famous quote about insanity: it's defined as doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. To my knowledge, Einstein never came to South Carolina, where our legislature could have schooled the fella.

Hasn't it been the case for the past decade?

We have, in Columbia, a Legislative Homeowners Association. What most of the neighbors have in common is shared wariness and a shared commitment to maintaining some minimum standards -- by minimum, I certainly mean "minimally adequate."

And in our neighborhood, we have a small gang of elected malcontents who aren't satisfied that South Carolina is already trapped in the Wayback Machine with the controls broken off at "Eisenhower."

By the front entrance to our neighborhood is a monstrosity on cinderblocks: our rusty, antiquated system of funding our public schools. Everyone sees it, with its dented 1977 license plate, its yellowed diamond-in-the-back, surrounded by patchy poke salad. It's a blot that gives the whole neighborhood a bad name. People from other neighborhoods -- yonder in Georgia and North Carolina and beyond -- see it and feel smug, superior, better than us.

Our Legislative HOA could fix matters altogether, of course. Raise HOA dues a little, based on property value, and have the decayed monster removed and replaced with something nice and functional. But nobody wants their dues increased, especially not based on property value.

Yes, to some degree, the HOA majority is ashamed of the decayed and neglected school-funding structure in their front yard, but they take so much pride in their live-and-let-live by-laws and covenants that they're loathe to take action, to change the rules, to rewrite the budget, to replace that rusted monstrosity with a school-funding system that works for all kids and their parents.

So the HOA does what it normally does: It pays to have more cinderblocks propped up beneath the chassis, so it doesn't completely fall down.

This, of course, angers the little gang of malcontents, who introduce bills year after year to eliminate the cinderblocks and pay parents to send their children to private schools.

And how does the HOA leaders handle the gang and its bills? They wait until the last minute, give the malcontents time to air out their year's-worth of wingnut angst, then drop the boom on the plan -- usually without a lot of fanfare.

And what happened last week at the State House? Seanna Adcox of The State reports it:

The latest plan to use tax credits to help parents send their children to private school died by slim margins Wednesday in the South Carolina House.

With no debate, representatives voted 60-59 to reject the measure. In a subsequent vote of 61-59, the House refused to reconsider - officially killing the bill. It was a stunningly swift vote on the contentious issue that keeps popping up in the Legislature.

The same bill was rejected a month ago by the Senate Education Committee, also with very little discussion. Senate Education Chairman John Courson said then that lawmakers knew where they stood philosophically on the issue.

And what did the malcontents say to this -- yet one more -- defeat at the hands of the bipartisan majority?

Despite the rejection in both chambers, the group pushing the effort pledges to return for another round.

"We're excited it got that close. We've always seen this as a long-term pursuit," said Neil Mellen, spokesman for South Carolinians for Responsible Government.

See what I mean about schooling Einstein on insanity?

Educators roundly praised the move. Jackie Hicks, president of the state's largest association of education professionals, The SCEA, credited educators themselves with pressing their lawmakers with facts and figures:

These victories in both houses of the Legislature, are the culmination of months of work by the members, leadership, and staff calling the disastrous consequences of this legislation to the attention of lawmakers, policy makers, the media and voters. This is a victorious end to an historic campaign. We spared no effort.

The SCEA campaign began by developing and leading a statewide coalition of civic, educational, and religious groups that were committed to quality public education. The SCEA then commissioned an independent poll of SC residents and learned that a whopping 64% of residents opposed sending millions of dollars to private schools at taxpayer expense.

Armed with this support, The SCEA president, vice-president and other members testified before both houses of the legislature. The SCEA submitted letters to the editor and op-ed articles to the state’s newspapers, noting that the bill would be too expensive and that South Carolina schools need reforms that are proven to work and will prepare our students for the jobs of the future.

Likewise, leaders of the state's association of school boards pointed to the influence of citizens who pressured lawmakers to face facts.

"The bipartisan vote sends a very clear and resounding message that the citizens of South Carolina are not interested in abandoning our public school students," Paul Krohne, executive director of the state School Boards Association, said in a statement. "If nothing else, this issue has galvanized those of us in South Carolina - and there are thousands - who reject the abandonment philosophy."

"The abandonment philosophy." We've come a long way, haven't we, from the same Eisenhower era that malcontents among us recall so fondly, when neighbor cared for neighbor? Today, it's every man for himself, and the most successful among are the ones who collect the most toys -- and who abandon the rest.

The State rightly pointed out the influence of "out-of-state money" fueling this issue. If NCLB has proven anything to the business community, it's that there's billions of dollars to be made in education, if education can be yanked out of the public domain and planted squarely in private enterprise. Privatizing school buses? That's child's play, a piker's game. Wait until public education is shut down and parents are forced into the private market for their children's education -- and the profits begin to roll like mighty waters. Pay attention: There's a reason that Australian billionaire and Fox News Channel owner Rupert Murdoch just purchased 90 percent of an education software company -- and vowed to use his News Corporation to make public education a high-priority issue in the 2012 presidential election.

It's hard not to remain a little skeptical about the timing of this entire ordeal.

At the end of 2010, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp paid almost $400m in cash to purchase 90% of Wireless Generation, a company that bills itself as "the leading provider of innovative education software, data systems, and assessment tools for reading, writing and math,"

On Tuesday, News Corp announced "The Future of American Education: A Presidential Primary Forum."

And lest we forget, voucher bills have always been about money -- not education.

The basics of the latest plan were the same as previous ones: The bill would give tax breaks to parents who can afford to pay tuition up front, while parents could apply for scholarships. The people and businesses that donate money for those scholarships could take the tax break.

The key differences were that the amount of tax credit or scholarship would vary by district, and that parents with children already in private school would get no break for several years, and then a reduced amount. The tax credit or scholarship would be tied to half of whatever the state spends on a public school student there. Next school year, the statewide average would be $2,417.

Tuition at the state's elite private schools can top $18,000 per student. Opponents have said the proposal is geared to well-off parents, since tuition would remain out of reach for poor students, even with a scholarship. But advocates said the average cost of tuition across more than 300 private schools statewide is $4,400.

And so long as the Legislative Homeowners Association honors its laissez-faire by-laws and covenants more than its commitment to funding a good education for every child, the malcontents will keep coming back. After seven years of trying, they've gotten a taste for it now.

“We’re gaining ground every year,” said state Rep. Bill Herbkersman, R-Beaufort, a tax credit supporter. “This was the closest vote yet.”

Rights for South Carolina's workers too costly to profit margins

The same issue of Columbia's Free Times that included the great letter from Joanne Hafter featured an article by Al Dozier on the "tough times" facing unions in our state.

It called to mind what my civics teacher told us was the fundamental definition of a labor union: "Working people working with other working people to achieve mutual goals and improve the lives of all working people and their communities." He was a great civics teacher, one of the best.

Dozier, in his article, recounts the highlights of a recent meeting of union and professional association leaders in Irmo. Hoyt Wheeler, a USC instructor, told the group that "unions historically have provided important access to justice for workers by providing a collective voice that otherwise might not be heard. But they are unpopular in South Carolina, with a membership of only about 4.6 percent of the workforce, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2010 figures."

I wonder why that is. But I suppose I don't have far to wonder; South Carolina has always had a love affair with cheap (or free) labor. The English Barbadians who climbed off the boat at Charles Towne in 1670 had their chests carried off the boat behind them by slaves. When slavery was abolished, the same wealthy and increasingly industrialist class refused to pay wages to free blacks and turned to poor whites to supply the cheap labor, in sharecropping and factory work. Mill villages with mill churches and mill stores, and mill scrip to pay mill wages, were just an extension of the old plantation system.

We even exploited children -- kept them ignorant, stunted them with poor diets, paid them a pittance and made them part of the formula for ramshackle rental housing so it was necessary for them to work rather than attend school, assuming a school existed close enough to attend.

Let working people work with other working people to organize themselves, improve themselves, empower themselves and help themselves as a class into better economic conditions? Never: Do that, and cheap labor won't be as cheap. Progress is too costly. Better for the profit margin to keep people ignorant and disorganized.

Anyway, Dozier's article mentions the pay-for-test-scores scheme that Superintendent Mick Zais is foisting on South Carolina's teachers, and it was refreshing to hear that someone is standing up and saying no to Zais's dodge.

His pay-for-performance proposal, a measure designed to base teacher salaries on the success of their students, is opposed by the South Carolina Education Association.

Panelist Jackie Hicks, president of The SCEA, said making teacher pay dependent on student success has already been proven ineffective because so many other circumstances come into play.

“We do not support that,” Hicks said. “But an awful lot of people do and we will hear a lot of conversations on that.”

Hicks helped lead the March 12 rally at the State House to protest legislators’ plans to cut $700 million from the state budget by making severe reductions to Medicaid and education programs.

The SCEA also opposes the use of vouchers to pay for private education, a policy
advocated by many Republican leaders in the state.

Hurray, President Hicks. Teachers in South Carolina need a champion, someone not afraid to fight for them. Timidity, niceness and ga-ga (go along, get along) leadership have gotten us precisely where we are, and it's going to take leadership with a fighting spirit and stamina to get us out of the morass.

The discussion drew comments that educators should speak with a more unified voice on state issues and turn out in larger numbers at the polls.

Hicks replied that SCEA members did have a good turnout, but more statewide efforts need to be made by others in the education community.

Most teachers are performing well in spite of difficult circumstances, she said.

“I’m sick and tired of hearing how bad our teachers are. We are doing a fine job in South Carolina, considering what we are dealing with.”

Yes, yes and yes. Teachers -- educators at every level, really -- have to know that the profession is larger than themselves, that it was built on the backs of educators with lesser resources and personal means, and that present-day educators have a moral obligation to consider the profession that they will leave to the next generation of educators, and the generations thereafter.

I know too many educators personally who have refused to participate. I know one who was a fantastic teacher, Ms. B, who used that as her reason for not stepping up and helping to speak out when administrators abused others: I'm a good teacher, she said, as if it nothing bad would happen to good teachers. But, like nearly everyone else, she had a bad year, too, stemming from matters with a teenage daughter at home, and suddenly she was under attack, too. For some of our colleagues, it was a bitter pill to swallow, to defend Ms. B when she had been plainly apathetic about the same injustices to others for some years. In the end, she lost a great deal of respect, lost a leadership role and only worked for another few years before taking early retirement.

Other excuses are just as maddening. "My husband doesn't want me to get involved" is one. "I'm too busy" is another, when everyone employed by a school district is, by definition, too busy. And "I can't afford it" is the one that galls me the most, knowing that for generations, teachers who earned far less -- only a few thousand dollars a year in the 1950s, 1960s, etc -- and who raised larger families in those times, still banded together and made their contributions, often with the urging and blessings of their spouses who understood the importance of working and fighting together for progress. For these educators, the profession and its impact on their communities and their state was far more important than one's own career.

Anyway, conversation in Irmo ultimately turned to Governor Nikki Haley and her anti-worker bent, Dozier writes.

There is anti-union sentiment everywhere, and it is very evident in the administration of newly elected Gov. Nikki Haley. Haley stirred up a hornet’s nest with comments she made upon appointing Catherine Templeton as head of the department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.

“We’re going to fight the unions, and I needed a partner to help me do it,” Haley said of Templeton, a Charleston lawyer who has experience in legal battles with unions.

Because working people in South Carolina, working with other working people in South Carolina to achieve mutual goals and improve the lives of all working people and their communities in South Carolina, are far too great a danger for a governor of South Carolina and her corporate campaign contributors. Such liberty is too costly to the profit margin.

The SCEA President Jackie Hicks describes a 'moral budget'

The SCEA President Jackie Hicks spoke Saturday to more than 2,000 attendees rallying at the State Capitol on behalf of a "moral budget" and against further cuts to South Carolina essential obligations and institutions. In her remarks, Hicks defined a "moral budget."

Educators respond to the Zais plan

It took no time at all for teachers to respond to Superintendent Mick Zais's plan to improve schools other than traditional public schools in South Carolina. Jackie Hicks, president of The South Carolina Education Association, issued a statement to the media that's posted at The SCEA's website. Hicks finds Zais squarely in the middle of "a political movement whose real agenda is to perpetuate our system of inequality and unstable funding of our public schools."

They repeat several big lies over and over: Our students are far behind those in other countries. Our schools are failing. Bad teachers are responsible. Teacher unions protect those bad teachers and hence are responsible for failing schools. They hold up Finland, which has dramatically improved its national student achievement scores, as an example of how a nation can come from behind.

While these “reformers” are sincere in their beliefs, their claims are wrong. Their unshakable faith in continuing to espouse ideas which have been tried and tried have failed over and over again.

Her reference to Finland is enlightening and calls to mind the recent columns of education researcher Diane Ravitch: "Is Finland the Answer?" and "What Finland's Example Proves." But Hicks also delivers a history lesson on merit-pay schemes attempted in South Carolina during her time in the classroom, and their outcomes:

Let’s look at the evidence regarding the “pay for performance” plans espoused by the Superintendent of Education. South Carolina has tried merit pay plans over the years. In the late 1980’s and 1990’s, districts could choose to provide merit pay on a school-wide or an individual basis. These plans were abandoned, however, because they were too expensive and did not improve standardized test scores. Their costs escalated and became more than districts and the state wanted to pay.

About three years ago, the Richland One School District made another try at pay for performance. The program cost the district three times the projected cost and it was cancelled after only one year. It also lowered teacher and staff morale and pitted teachers and staff against administrators and board.

Research shows that paying teachers a bonus based on student performance does not improve student achievement. A pay-for-performance study released by Vanderbilt University and the RAND Corporation followed nearly 300 Nashville Public Schools fifth- through eighth-grade teachers from 2007 to 2009. The result? No overall effect on student achievement across the entire treatment group.

The executive director of Vanderbilt’s National Center on Performance Incentives, said, “We sought a clean test of the basic proposition: If teachers know they will be rewarded for an increase in their students’ test scores, will test scores go up? We found that the answer to that question is no.”

That study is not alone. This last June, the Mathematica Policy Research study found that a merit pay pilot program for teachers that began in Chicago schools in 2006 had no effect on student achievement. According to the study, merit pay did not improve student standardized test scores or teacher retention – two main goals of the program paid for with a $27.5 million federal grant.

In short, students who don’t have to deal with grinding poverty are not behind those in other countries; they are at the front of pack. Our schools are not failing; indeed, they are the only place many children feel safe and vital. Bad teachers are not responsible for poor test scores; poverty is. And South Carolina has not one teachers union.

Union? It's funny that reformers in South Carolina and elsewhere cite the Finland example as often as they do, because, and Hicks and Ravitch point out in their texts, Finland is nearly 100 percent unionized.

Hicks writes:

Compare Finland’s results with South Carolina’s. Finland has uniformly high academic scores. It also has a childhood poverty rate of just 3-4 percent and its teachers are almost 100 percent unionized. South Carolina has low scores in most academic areas, a childhood poverty rate of 20 percent and zero percent of its teachers are unionized. Indeed, teachers do not have the right to unionize. For the South Carolina students who live well below the poverty line, their problem is neither their teacher nor their public school. It’s their poverty. The current tax and funding policies of SC perpetuate the problem.

Here is where a little time spent in the classroom might give a little seasoning to future superintendents of education. Hicks reminds us all of the strategies proven to work when the mission is to strengthen student achievement in traditional public schools:

There is, however, a way to improve educational outcomes in South Carolina: Invest in public schools and charge them with carrying out programs that go well beyond the school day, such as high quality, universal pre-school and kindergarten, after-school programs, summer programs and tutoring that have been proven to mitigate the impact of poverty on children’s lives and to improve their learning. Reform our antiquated tax system, which favors special interests over our children, and the prosperity of SC. Increase the beginning teachers salary so that the best and brightest of our students become and remain teachers.

Let us institute real reform and not the same old tired ideas we have tried in the past. The future of our children and our State are too important to continue to play the same old blame and finger pointing games as has been the case in the past.