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...

South Carolina relies on national charity for homeless children

They're not our state lawmakers' children, so I suppose it's reasonable that our lawmakers have no interest in providing for them.

That's the logic that applies to providing adequate funding for children enrolled in public schools, and it appears to be the logic applied to South Carolina's homeless children, too.

The national charity Feed The Children is distributing 1,900 backpacks and supplies to homeless school children from South Carolina.

Feed The Children is giving the backpacks to officials of the State Department of Education on Friday in Columbia. They will pass the backpacks on to representatives who work with homeless students in more than 60 school districts throughout the state.

O, fudge. For a moment there, I was hopeful that homeless children might benefit from this out-of-state charity, until I read that the out-of-state charity is turning over its donations to the Department of Education. Does that mean Superintendent Mick Zais and Jay Ragley will get to decide where the backpacks go?

If so, no homeless children may ever see them. Or, they'll get them late. These things have to be considered carefully by the higher-ups in the Rutledge Building, and Zais isn't exactly on the job five days a week.

Feed The Children spokesman Mark Opgrande says the backpacks are filled with school supplies, non-perishable food, personal hygiene items like toothpaste and combs, and children's books.

Opgrande says Feed The Children is working with Staples, Inc., and the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth on the project to distribute 150,000 backpacks during the current school year.

Better plan: Ask local superintendents to appoint a teacher representative to receive and coordinate distribution of the backpacks directly from the charity. Teachers know how to get things done, and they have a much better notion of which children need these supplies.

I doubt our state superintendent knows any children who attend public schools.

And why should he? They're not his children.

Who's in charge at the Department of Education?

I suspect it's Jay Ragley. He certainly has the extensive background in public education and the commitment to advocacy for public schools and public educators, as detailed here.

Which is good, because our elected superintendent apparently doesn't enjoy his job.

South Carolina Superintendent of Education Mick Zais took twice as much personal time during 2011 as the average state employee is allowed, according to an exclusive look at the schools chief’s schedule.

Zais’ personal calendar, which was made available to Sen. Phil Leventis (D-Sumter) through an open records request in November and later obtained by Palmetto Public Record, shows that Zais took 234 hours of personal time (the equivalent of 29 full workdays) between Jan. 12 and Nov. 17, when the schedule was turned over to Leventis. That number doesn’t include medical leave, of which Zais took the equivalent of six workdays during the same period. The schedule also doesn’t include the final five weeks of 2011, when Zais may have taken even more personal time for the Christmas holidays.

In sharp contrast to Zais’ considerable number of absences, a state employee with 10 or fewer years of experience is allowed 15 days of personal leave per year — about half of what Zais took during the 44 weeks covered in his schedule.

Yeah, public employees who take that kind of time off represent what we call former public employees or, for short, the unemployed.

And in South Carolina, that makes a person eligible for about three hours' worth of unemployment benefits.

Education Department spokesman Jay Ragley said the state superintendent, as a constitutional officer, is held to a different standard than regular employees.

I sure am glad Ragley was there to answer the phone when the media called. He always knows what to say to soothe the 'lectorate.

“Because of their unique status in state government, constitutional officers are presumed to be on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and are not allotted sick days or annual leave time as standard state employees accrue,” he said.

See what I mean? Let all put down the milk of magnesia, folks; no crisis here. Ragley's on the job.

Unfortunately, there are still one or two fellas -- statesmen, really -- who've been serving in the state Senate since before Ragley was born, and they tend to have opinions.

“It seems to be a trend that senior Republicans want to set their employment schedule in such a way that if a regular employee did the same thing, they’d be fired,” Leventis told Palmetto Public Record on Wednesday.

This is a job for Mitt Romney, or Donald Trump. Does anyone have their numbers handy? Need to move quick. Ineffective employees on the payroll are a waste of public dollars. Hop to it.

The schools chief began his habit of taking large amounts of personal time just one week after he was sworn in, with a five-hour break in Beaufort on Jan. 20.,

Well-begun is half-done, I always say. My first principal told me, Start the year like you want to finish the year.

...and hardly went more than a week at a time without taking a few hours off. Very few of the dates are for justifiable reasons such as visiting a family member in the hospital, but the vast majority of Zais’ leave is simply marked “personal time” — with no explanation as to why the schools chief would need to be absent.

The schedule sometimes includes destinations such as Pawley’s Island and Hilton Head, areas known more for their excellence in golf than in education. In August, Zais took a week off to attend a stamp-collecting conference in Indiana.

Zais is a putting philatelist! I knew it. Have to keep our eye on him until Romney or Trump can get here for the firin'.

On Friday, September 30, he took three hours of personal time to clean his storage shed. While this normally would be somewhat excusable, the fact that Zais had time to attend the USC-Auburn game the next day means he certainly had time to clean his shed on his time.

Zais receives a taxpayer-funded salary of $92,007, according to a state database, which works out to an hourly rate of about $44. Excluding the 15 personal days which a normal state employee is allotted, that means Superintendent Zais took over $5,000 in taxpayer dollars for the extra time.

“This raises more questions than answers,” commented Leventis. “I think we need to see a detailed account of what exactly Mr. Zais is doing to fulfill his obligation as Superintendent of Education.”

Yeah! So would we all, Senator. Tens of thousands of children want to know what's he's done for them.

Zais did take the time to meet with numerous Tea Party and Republican groups in 2011, including anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, and even former presidential candidate Rick Perry on the day the Texas governor announced his candidacy in August.

Is that covered in the job description of the state superintendent?

Those meetings aren’t included in the personal time listed on the schedule, but it does show that Zais has plenty of time to conduct political business at the office — making one wonder how much time is left over to run the schools system.

Reasonable question.

“Clearly this is a politically motivated misinformation campaign from partisans, as Dr. Zais is the first Republican state superintendent after 12 years of Democrat [sic] state superintendents.” Ragley said Wednesday when reached for comment.

Oh, come on. You can do better than that. I don't have any suggestions to offer, but since you're the chief whatever-it's-called for the only state superintendent that 700,000 public schoolchildren in South Carolina have, surely you could have spent a few more minutes thinking up a better excuse than that. Rick Perry? Grover Norquist? The Tea Party?

How about throwing out for public consumption the vast number of hours that Zais has spent in public school classrooms during the past year?

Or the ton of time he's spent begging stingy lawmakers for sufficient funds to keep schools running at optimum speeds?

Or the days he's spent lobbying our Congressional delegation for more federal funds to keep hundreds of teachers on the job, so class sizes don't balloon and student achievement falls through the floor?

Oh, he didn't do any of those things?

Okay, then, I get why you went with the Pee Wee Herman defense: I know you are, but what am I?

Given the numerous questions raised by Zais’ schedule, it’s no wonder his office was so reluctant to release it back in November. When Leventis first asked for the information, Education Department spokesman Jay Ragley told him it would cost nearly half a million dollars to produce the documents, as The State’s Gina Smith reported in December — about 12 man-years of work, according to Leventis.

After being informed that such a quote was flatly absurd, Zais’ office agreed to provide the documents free of charge. “They’re trying to hide behind a sham designed to conceal, not reveal,” Leventis commented on Wednesday.

Still, the all-important question remains — with the superintendent out of office so frequently, who’s in charge at the Department of Education?

Is it Ragley?

Public schools are no budget priority in South Carolina

I appreciate reading Bill Davis's columns in Statehouse Report, as they're usually quite cogent and pertinent analyses of the state's unncessary misfortunes. His item in the August 5 edition was no different, titled "State avoids fully funding education."

Comprehensive and sensible public education reform could benefit, or be the victim of, competing political agendas in the days ahead.

South Carolina has always struggled with the confluence of education and money, from the time of slavery until modern times. And the 2011-12 school year will be no different based on trends.

In hopes of better competing with regional, national, and international school systems, South Carolina’s legislature in 1977 passed a series of funding bills to funnel money into schools and maintain funding on a per-pupil basis, also known as base student funding.

How has that gone over the past 10 years? Does the word “rollercoaster” ring a bell? Despite claims by legislators that education was cut last and “held harmless” in recent years, the hard numbers tell a different story.

State law requires the General Assembly to fund school districts at roughly $2,700 per-student for the current school and fiscal year, according to state officials. But, the legislature, making use of special one-year temporary laws called provisos, has routinely skirted funding the full amount.

How far off? The actual per-pupil amount this year is $1,880, according to the state Department of Education, with even less in recurring funding. In other words, the base student allocation is roughly one-third off.

As a diligent journalist, Davis was bound to give Su-Pretendent Mick Zais's spinmeister, Jay Ragley, time and space to rationalize the deep cuts.

Though diligent, I am not similarly bound; I will offer my own interpretation of Ragley's answer, in my own words: In South Carolina, under the present leadership at the state and legislative level, adequate funding for public education is not high on anyone's priority list.

Flexibility, flexibility, flexibility; say it enough times and it loses meaning.

And, what a law says is subject to interpretation: You say you don't have enough money to do the job, I say you do. That's life. Deal with it.

Currently, the per-pupil funding is on par with actual dollar amounts from the 1998-99 budget. And the total amount of education funding from the state’s General Fund, which doesn’t include federal pass-through dollars, dropped to $1.8 billion last year in 2010-11. That represented a nearly $300-million cut from the previous year, and is on par with state appropriations from 10 years ago -- before the dot-com bubble burst was completely felt.

Davis included some views from educators themselves on the matter, Scott Price of the South Carolina School Boards Association and Jackie Hicks, president of The South Carolina Education Association.

Price, who is paid to advocate on behalf public education, said he saw the paucity and the up-and-down nature of per-pupil funding as a bellwether of other state priorities.

“If we’re a decade behind in school funding, then we better take a look at the conditions of our state roads, and the number of law enforcement officers we have patrolling them.”

This was far from the first year that Jackie B. Hicks, president of the S.C. Education Association, became frustrated with legislators for skirting the law they passed to set per-pupil spending. She said the legislature ought to follow its own legislation or write a new law to solve the ongoing problems.

“In our state, leadership has not done a good job of putting public education first,” Hicks said. “Provisos have depleted everything,” which, she said, was especially damaging in a state with such a high ratio of children depending on school-based free and reduced price lunch and breakfast programs.

Offering a view into his "crystal ball," Davis concluded, "Failure to act on the voluminous Taxation Realignment Commission final report this year showed how little interest the General Assembly has in affecting major taxation changes. And with next year being an election year and the dominant perception being that an exemption removed is a new tax created, there may be no simple answer to improving state school funding issues."

Which is how many educators are reminded every day that we live in South Carolina.

Deadline passes; Zais, Haley agree on destruction of public schools

Albert Einstein was one sharp cookie cutter. Without ever visiting South Carolina or meeting General Mick Zais, Einstein once said, "The world has become a dangerous place to live in, not because of some evil men, but because of the many that do not do anything about it."

It is very sad that Zais, Her Excellency Nikki Haley and others are so intent on leaving their mark on South Carolina that they don’t care if that mark is a scar. And we -- yes, we, those who vote and those who don't vote -- enable these despots by giving them public office, access to the machinery of public government.

This morning's The State brings an item that revealed several key thoughts for the day.

One is that too few of us are bothered to stand up and speak out for what is important. When the U.S. Department of Education got tired of playing "will he or won't he" with Zais, it set a midnight deadline on August 15 for him to act or lose $144 million in federal dollars to pay for teaching positions. So a protest was organized at the Rutledge Building, where Zais is encamped, and only a few dozen people came.

Yes, it was the first day of school. But not everyone is in school, or works in a school; everyone does, on the other hand, have a material interest in the progress of South Carolina's public schools.

Another fact is that the $144 million that Zais threw away doesn't represent some ideological victory for him, only rank stupidity. Those millions won't come back to South Carolina's taxpayers. They will go instead to the public schools of other states, and Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Perhaps, if we go to Hilton Head Island and listen intently enough, we may be able to hear thousands of little Puerto Rican children shouting, "Thank you, South Carolina taxpayers," from across the water.

Another fact is that South Carolina, of all the 50 states, was the only one in the Union who lacked the capacity to get a job done.

The money comes from the Education Jobs Fund, which has $10 billion to be divided up among all 50 states, plus Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Governors had to apply for the money by September 2010. South Carolina and Wyoming did not apply, and the Texas application was denied because of an amendment in the bill that only affected Texas.

The Texas congressional delegation eventually got the amendment repealed, and Texas received $830 million. In Wyoming, while the governor declined the money, school districts applied separately and were awarded $17.5 million.

South Carolina needed to change federal law to receive its money. To be eligible, states had to meet one of four tests regarding funding for K-12 education and higher education. South Carolina met the K-12 funding standards, but did not meet the higher-education standards, according to Zais spokesman Jay W. Ragley. The Legislature controls funding for higher education.

Last year, when Democrats still controlled the House of Representatives, U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, then the third-ranking House member, and U.S. Rep. John Spratt, then the chairman of the House budget committee, tried and failed to change the law so South Carolina would be eligible for the money.

South Carolina will be the only state not to receive the federal education money, which so far has saved or created 110,099 education jobs, according to federaltransparency.gov. Instead, South Carolina’s money might be divided up among other states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, according to an Aug. 5 letter to Zais from Ann Whalen, director of policy and program implementation for the U.S. Department of Education.

The best that Zais could do was write a letter of his own -- most likely written by Ragley, or another flack, and only signed by Zais -- in which General Zais made the grandiose declaration: "South Carolina can meet our educational challenges without micromanagement by the federal government."

If Ragley wrote this, he demonstrates that despite his Ohio upbringing and education, he's a passable student of South Carolina history and has a gift for mimicry of our state's epic demagogues. His statement's grandiosity matches perfectly the defiant tone, for example, of Governor "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman in 1890: "The whites have absolute control of the government, and we intend at any hazard to retain it."

And Governor Coleman Blease in 1911: "I am opposed to white people's taxes being used to educate Negroes. I am a friend of the Negro race. The white people of the South are the best friends to the Negro race. In my opinion, when the people of this country began to try to educate the Negro they made a serious and grave mistake, and I fear the worst result is yet to come. So why continue?"

And Governor Olin D. Johnston in 1944, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Smith v. Allwright: "History has taught us that we must keep our white Democratic primaries pure and unadulterated so that we might protect the welfare and homes of all the people of our state. White supremacy will be maintained in our primaries. Let the chips fall where they may."

And Governor Strom Thurmond in 1948: "There's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Negro race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

Of course, these demagogueries are explicit about their subject matter. But South Carolina's premier message man, taught us how to say the same thing using different words: "You start out in 1954 by saying, 'N***, n***, n***.' By 1968 you can't say 'n***' — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'N***, n***'."

That's Lee Atwater, Newberry College Class of 1970, which brings us back around again to Zais, who warmed the seat of Newberry College's presidency from 1999 to 2009: "South Carolina can meet our educational challenges without micromanagement by the federal government." The words are different, aren't they?

But The State added one more significant factor is its reporting today: Haley's steadfast support for her man at the state department.

Haley, who was at Daniel Island Monday for a bill-signing, told reporters she supports Zais’ position. “I trust what he is doing is right,” Haley said, according to a video of her comments her staff posted on YouTube. “He is trying to get our education house in order so that the dollars are going into the classroom and so we are not as dependent on federal dollars in a way that we don’t need to be for our kids. So I support him on that and will continue to support him on that.”

First, since when is it necessary for the governor of South Carolina to travel to Daniel Island to sign a bill? Two months after the legislature has vacated Columbia? The State and others should call this what it is, whether it's a fundraising junket, a family beach trip or a photo opportunity in support of the governor's perpetual campaign plan.

"Getting our educational house in order," Haley said: another example of an Atwater abstraction. Doing so begins with destruction of the foundation, it appears: Eliminate as many teachers as possible, and the whole enterprise will fail, and then we can build an education system entirely in the private sector, with its profit margins for campaign contributors.

Meanwhile, Zais's mouthpiece spins and spins:

Ragley said that while the state will not receive the latest federal money, school districts did see an increase in how much the state spends per student, up to $1,788 this year from $1,615 last year. The $1,788 does not include $92 per student in one-time money. Per-pupil spending is down from its high of $2,476 a student in 2008.

“South Carolina school districts have to come to realize they have to do more with less,” Ragley said.

More with less. We're already doing without a governor and a state superintendent of education, and without adequate funding. Even Pharoah provided the Hebrews with mud when he took away the straw for brick-making.

More with less is an exercise in futility, which was not lost on one of yesterday's protestors:

Duffy Allen, a retired teacher from Newberry County schools, said she knew South Carolina would not receive the money. But she came to protest anyway, because “public education is my heart and soul.”

“I do feel like it’s futile,” she said. “But it’s necessary to still make your voice heard.”

Foster leaves Department of Education for Beaufort

The Island Packet reported the news yesterday that Jim Foster, the veteran public information officer for the state Department of Education, will become the new director of school and community services for Beaufort County's school system.

Two reactions crowd the mind.

First, this is great news for Beaufort County's schools, children and parents, and especially for Superintendent Valerie Truesdale. Foster brings a long and respected awareness of the inside game of the state's news media, the legislature, and particularly of public education. However large and broad is the network of education experts in South Carolina, Foster has kept himself at the center of it, keeping on speed dial the most knowledgeable minds in the field.

As he told the newspaper that announced his move, "Everything that's come out of this agency in terms of news for the past 19 years has been on my watch." Which means that he served superintendents Barbara Nielsen, Inez Tenenbaum and Jim Rex, three chief executives of very different political stripes, capably and well.

Second, what a terrible waste on the part of Mick Zais. And if Foster was, indeed, purged from his position at the state department for a lack of political purity, for holding or defending principled positions in support of the department's mission, or -- worst -- as retribution from the partisan political hack that occupies the position of, rather than serves as, a deputy superintendent, then Zais is guilty of far more than poor judgment.

Foster is emblematic in one of two ways: If he chose freely to leave the Department, it suggests that the atmosphere that Zais and Ragley are creating is a toxic environment, and many others are suffering too. If he was purged, then no one who has served South Carolina's public schoolchildren for any length of time from the Rutledge Building is safe.

Sure, it's possible that Foster has long yearned to relocate to Beaufort, to abandon the hustle and bustle of Columbia and to get back to the ground floor of public information work in the Low Country. If that's the case, good for him, and congratulations to him. His commitment to serve the demands of great leaders kept him trapped in the capital long enough, and he's earned his reward at Mink Point Boulevard in Beaufort.

I just don't see it.

The Beaufort County School District has hired a veteran of the S.C. Department of Education as its new director of school and community services.

For nearly two decades, Jim Foster has directed department communications, supervised the release of standardized test scores and answered questions from newspaper reporters.
...
District superintendent Valerie Truesdale said that when Foster starts in August, he will bring deep experience in education policy.

"He'll have to learn Beaufort, and he'll have to learn our local issues, but his job knowledge is strong," she said.

Foster is a South Carolina native and was an editor at The (Columbia) State newspaper before joining the Education Department.

In Beaufort County, he will manage both internal and external communication for the district and will work to help taxpayers and residents understand the difficulties facing educators, Truesdale said.

"How does one convey complex issues such as school closures?" Truesdale asked. "How do we help folks understand the challenges of raising student achievement in the era of diminished resources?"

Foster said that after many years of working in education policy in Columbia, he's excited to be moving closer to teachers and students.

"That's one of the aspects of this opportunity that intrigues me the most, is working more closely with educators in their day-to-day jobs," he said.

The test of my suspicion will be proven when Zais and Ragley announce Foster's successor at the department -- if they announce one. Will Foster be succeeded by someone with long ties to public education in the state, a deep knowledge of the field and its experts, or experience as a district public information officer?

Or will they install another partisan political operative to serve their ideological interests?

Let's wait and see.

Zais may forfeit $144 million in jobs funding

Has anyone from Governor Nikki Haley's office been in communication with Superintendent Mick Zais recently? I ask because Haley ran on a platform of "Less Talk, More Jobs," and Zais seems to be pushing "Fewer Jobs, More Talk."

The Greenville News explains:

Leaders of two of the state's largest public education associations lashed out at state Superintendent of Education Mick Zais on Monday for turning down the chance to win a grant of up to $50 million in federal Race to the Top money, even as the state's efforts have languished in attempting to claim its share of nearly $144 million in federal money to save teaching jobs.

All 49 other states received their portion of the $10 billion teaching jobs grant.

Zais, a former brigadier general now in his sixth month as leader of the state's K-12 education agency, decided against applying for the Race to the Top money, one of President Obama's key education initiatives, saying he opposes “federal intrusion” as a means of improving the quality of schools.

Leaders of the South Carolina School Boards Association and the South Carolina Association of School Administrators went on the offensive Monday, joining the state Board of Education in calling for Zais to reconsider his decision not to compete in Race to the Top.

“We are willing to support the state superintendent and the leadership to improve education,” said Molly Spearman, executive director of the School Boards Association. “But we really feel that some very bad decisions are being made without input from the folks who are on the ground working in these districts.”

J.W. Ragley, a spokesman for Zais, said the Republican state superintendent is living up to his campaign promise in not seeking the grants, which he said come with strings attached.

“Dr. Zais took a clear position as a candidate for public office. He did not support Washington's Race to the Top program because it provided one-time money for recurring expenses, which is the definition of an unfunded mandate,” Ragley said. “His position has not changed since assuming office in January.

“What message is the education establishment sending to students by demanding Dr. Zais change his position regarding Race to the Top? It's acceptable to break your word?”

To put a fine point on it, Mr. Ragley, yes. It is a sign of intelligence to evaluate conditions and make decisions based on new conditions or new information, even if those decisions oppose an earlier-held viewpoint.

And it is certainly a sign of foolishness, if not wanton malice or stupidity, to hold to a viewpoint despite new information or changing conditions merely because you once held the viewpoint. Presumably, you once ate baby food from jars because that's what you liked. Presumably, you once wore diapers because it was the best of several unattractive options. Do you still eat baby food from jars and wear diapers? If not, why not? Is it because, perhaps, conditions changed and you made different decisions based on new information? If that is the case, then surely you're capable of learning, growing, and even changing your position.

This is one more example that elections have consequences, and that elevating unqualified candidates with no previous electoral experience to high office is the sort of criminally tragic act that keeps South Carolina trapped in a time-warped cage of its own making. Hiring inexperienced political lackeys to deliver the daily pap is another.

The separate issue of the missed opportunity for $144 million for teaching jobs goes back to the previous administration.

South Carolina didn't qualify for its share of the money because the law says states must not have reduced their proportionate level of funding for both K-12 and higher education over the two years when they were receiving stabilization funds from the federal government.

That ensures states don't simply slash state spending when they see federal money coming and instead use the federal money to accomplish the grant's purpose of saving jobs.

Although South Carolina's budget was reduced from $6 billion in 2009-10 to $5.8 billion this year, the percentage of the budget that was spent on K-12 schools went up, from 39.7 percent to 43.3 percent. But the percentage spent on higher education fell, from 9.2 percent to 7.3 percent, according to figures from the state Education Department.

In the previous round of stabilization money, the formula allowed states to calculate their spending percentages on the total of K-12 and higher education — which would qualify South Carolina for this grant. The total percentage of the budget spent on education rose from 49.8 percent to 50.7 percent over those two years.

When the issue arose last August, Zais' predecessor, Democrat Jim Rex, had tried to get Congress to tweak the law so the state didn't lose out on the money, which would pay for an estimated 2,600 teaching jobs. But that hadn't been done by the time Rex lost his re-election bid to Zais in November.

If the money isn't sent to South Carolina by Sept. 30, it will go back to the federal treasury.The two education associations are urging the state congressional delegation to seek an amendment or a special “bypass” law, similar to what was done in Texas, to get the money.

Dorchester 2 privatizes bus fleet, 200 drivers fired

While spending time today in Charleston to study further the National Labor Relations Board's complaint against Boeing for moving union jobs to a right-to-work-for-less state, Governor Nikki Haley might do well to offer at least a few minutes' time to roughly 200 bus drivers, mechanics and others in the Dorchester 2 school district who have just lost their jobs. Surely workers who have long been South Carolina citizens rate as much attention as corporations whose roots lay on the other side of North America.

The Post & Courier of Charleston reports today that those 200 school transportation workers have been notified they can apply -- can't anyone? -- for jobs with Dallas School Services, the private company that Dorchester 2 has selected to run its transportation program beginning next year. "They will be given priority in the hiring process if they meet the company's criteria," the paper reports. I'm curious about what the criteria might be.

And I'm curious about the comparison and contrast between the health care and retirement benefits that Dallas School Services offers and the state health and retirement plans.

Lest we be mistaken, this is not a private company headquartered next-door to our north in Durham, North Carolina. Durham School Services is based in Warrenville, Illinois, a full 900 miles from Dorchester. The route that company officials must travel from their headquarters to the district office in Dorchester takes them through Joliet, Illinois; Gary and Indianapolis, Indiana; Louisville and Lexington, Kentucky; Knoxville, Tennessee; and Asheville, North Carolina; before taking I-26 South from Spartanburg to their Dorchester exit.

Indeed, this is the same private bus company that manages school transportation in Charleston and Beaufort counties.

To those readers in Charleston and Beaufort counties, I ask: How's bus privatization working out for you?

District 2 is one of the fastest-growing school districts in the state, with nearly 23,000 students. About 12,000 of them ride a bus each day.

District leaders Thursday said they had been considering hiring a private company to operate their buses for the past two years. They said the move would make the district's transportation system more efficient.

The issue did not come up in recent public meetings on the 2011-2012 district budget. It was raised at public meetings for the 2010-2011 budget, and many drivers and other transportation department employees spoke out against it.

If those drivers and other transportation department employees were longtime South Carolina citizens, I can understand why their views were ignored. We appear to have trouble hearing the cries of workers in South Carolina when there are out-of-state corporate interests knocking at the door.

If memory serves, The State newspaper addressed the question of bus privatization less than three weeks ago. Because Governor Haley has expressed affection for a proposal to privatize the entire state's transportation program -- thus knocking thousands more public employees off their state health care plans and retirement benefits -- reporter Gina Smith cited a study that finds "it costs the state more in time and money to run a privatized school bus maintenance and repair shop than state-run shops."

This was no seat-of-your-pants opinion that Smith cited:

The three-year study, commissioned by the state Department of Education and released Friday, comes at a time when Gov. Nikki Haley’s office is looking into whether privatizing part, or all, of South Carolina’s school bus fleet would save the state money.

The study, conducted by TransPar Group, a Missouri-based transportation company, found that privatization of one Lowcountry bus maintenance and repair shop cost the state more, not less. It also found the shop required more state supervision than other shops.

The study found that a Mount Pleasant school bus shop – operated by the private transportation company General Diesel – exceeded the average costs of both a nearby Charleston bus shop, run by the state, and the average for the state’s school bus shops.

With news like this, I'm sure that our cost-conscious State Superintendent of Education would be all over this issue, ready to eliminate the private contract and return to a more cost-effective system.

State Superintendent of Education Mick Zais, a Republican, said the study’s results are not meaningful because of the state’s flawed contracting process.

The state's flawed contracting process? What flaws?

“The contracting process wasn’t effective,” said Jay Ragley, Zais’ spokesman, adding the private company, General Diesel, selected to take part in the study did not have experience in maintaining buses, only in repairing them.

Something about this doesn't compute.

Rather than operate its own transportation system for public schoolchildren in Charleston, it elected to hire a private company that can't "maintain" buses, only "repair" them? Is there a difference that Superintendent Zais's spokesman can explain?

General Diesel was selected, using the state’s required process, because it had a local presence, maintaining more than 90 buses for the Charleston County School District, according to the study. It also was the lower of two bidders.

The safety and security of South Carolina's public schoolchildren, in the hands of the lowest bidder.

Was the same process followed in Dorchester 2? Was Durham School Services the lowest bidder?

If so, be careful, you children of Dorchester 2. Your parents may have few options for legal recourse if something happens to you while riding the bus to school next year.