Heroic Mick Zais benefits from "politically weak" educators

When Superintendent Mick Zais appeared before a legislative committee to press his agenda to starve public education, he seemed out-of-place and fumbled for words to answer lawmakers' questions. But in a puff piece published by a right-wing organization online, Zais is absolutely eloquent, even accusatory of "weak-willed Republicans" who support public education and educators.

What distinguishes the Palmetto State’s K-12 reform debate from all the others is that it’s being led by an outspoken, retired Army brigadier general and former college president who is eager to take on the “liberal education establishment.”

State Superintendent of Education Mick Zais, a Republican, won election in 2010 by a huge margin of 108,000 votes. He has been in office for just over a year, but he has rankled lawmakers of both political parties by refusing to accept federal education dollars from President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative that gives states money in exchange for approved school reforms.

While other states are eager for the federal assistance, Zais argues that the one-time handouts come with strings attached and quickly turn into unfunded mandates, ultimately driving up education costs and stripping local communities of control over their schools.

“We don’t have a shortage of dollars in South Carolina’s schools, we have a shortage of accountability, competition and incentives,” Zais told EAG.

It's unclear when Zais took time to talk with EAG, a right-wing political organization, but perhaps it was on his own time rather than on state's clock. Taxpayers want to be sure that their dollars aren't being used to subsidize political activity.

Zais has told EAG that "South Carolina spends $11,700 per student, slightly above the national average," when he, better than anyone, knows that South Carolina spends less than $2,000. He knows it because he said so to the legislative budget committee on education:

Zais asked a Ways and Means panel Wednesday not to cut a key funding stream for classrooms, but he did not ask for an increase. The so-called base student cost primarily pays teacher salaries. The current per-student allocation is about $1,900 because of recession budget cuts. A state funding formula calls for it to be nearly $2,800 this year.

Had Zais accepted the offer of federal dollars from the Obama administration, that figure might have been a bit higher. But he didn't, and in his profile interview with EAG, he ridiculed the offer:

“If South Carolina had accepted its slice of the Race to the Top pie, it would equal $2.22 per student per year, for four years,” Zais said. “The idea that $2.22 would make a big difference is just nonsense. That’s not even a rounding error.”

Then, after delivering a sound smack to the federal government that afforded him a career-long military salary, and that will afford him a tasty retirement package, Zais turned his guns to professional educators.

Such views have drawn the ire of the “education industrial complex,” Zais’ term for those who place the interests of adult school employees ahead of the needs of students, and who claim failing public schools can be fixed with a checkbook.

“Traditional proposals for improving education – more money, better facilities, improved curriculum and smaller classes – will not work. We’ve tried that. We’ve tried that for 40 years,” Zais recently told an audience, according to the IndependentMail.com.

Here again, Zais tells out-of-state interviewers a tale that he knows is untrue. South Carolina's pre-eminent historian, Walter Edgar, could undercut this argument in only a couple of minutes, with an answer spanning three hundred years, and cap it with a "bless your heart" at the end.

See, educators have told lawmakers for generations how much it would cost to provide quality public education to all the state's children. But that figure has always been too high for South Carolina's corporate overlords, and it included too many children -- especially poor ones, and minority ones -- so the legislature has funded what it has chosen to fund, and told educators to make do.

Since the Education Finance Act was adopted in 1977, establishing the base student cost to be appropriated by the legislature annually, that figure has been fully-funded fewer than 10 times. It's all a matter of fact and history. Had Zais lived in South Carolina before coming to take the presidency of a small private college, he might have a better grasp on our state's education history.

And Zais himself has trotted out the old canard "I don't know if the money will be available" when it has suited his agenda to do so.

So to say that spending more money, building better facilities, improving curriculum and reducing class sizes won't work because "We’ve tried that. We’ve tried that for 40 years" is not merely a lie, but what we Southerners like to call a damn lie. That's the opposite of a little white lie.

Know your culture.

No matter. After telling that lie, Zais moved on to a lesser target: Moderate members of his own party.

Zais told EAG that while the nation’s teachers unions – the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers – comprise the heart of the “education industrial complex,” they are enabled by weak-willed Republicans.

“The education industrial complex is bipartisan,” Zais said. “We have RINOs – Republicans in Name Only – who are intimidated by the lobbying groups that get the public and the teachers all excited that we’re trying to destroy public education. In reality, we want to make it better and more accountable.”

Surely he didn't have this conversation from his office in the Rutledge Building, on a state telephone. Such blatant political conversation has no place in our state agencies.

Perhaps Sen. Phil Leventis will file another Freedom of Information Act request and find that out for us.

Then Zais described how he defies his oath of office, the one that made him the chief advocate for South Carolina's 700,000 public schoolchildren.

“Our traditional schools have a monopoly,” Zais said. “And monopolies have little incentive for improving or controlling costs. Accountability, competition and incentives have the power to transform the system.”

Zais’ education reform proposals are designed to break that monopoly.

See, those "traditional schools," the ones that Zais calls a "monopoly," are the ones that the state Constitution creates a state superintendent of education to support. It's plain as the nose on one's face.

ARTICLE XI.
PUBLIC EDUCATION

SECTION 1. State Board of Education.
There shall be a State Board of Education composed of one member from each of the judicial circuits of the State. The members shall be elected by the legislative delegations of the several counties within each circuit for terms and with such powers and duties as may be provided by law and shall be rotated among the several counties. One additional member shall be appointed by the Governor. The members of the Board shall serve such terms and the Board shall have such powers and duties as the General Assembly shall specify by law. (1972 (57) 3193; 1973 (58) 44.)

SECTION 2. State Superintendent of Education.
There shall be a State Superintendent of Education who shall be the chief administrative officer of the public education system of the State and shall have such qualifications as may be prescribed by law. (1972 (57) 3193; 1973 (58) 44.)

SECTION 3. System of free public schools and other public institutions of learning.
The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools open to all children in the State and shall establish, organize and support such other public institutions of learning, as may be desirable. (1972 (57) 3193; 1973 (58) 44.)

SECTION 4. Direct aid to religious or other private educational institutions prohibited.
No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution. (1972 (57) 3193; 1973 (58) 44.)

See the words in Section 2: "who shall be the chief administrative officer of the public education system of the State"? That means, if there IS a traditional-schools monopoly in South Carolina, the superintendent is the person who leads the monopoly. The superintendent isn't authorized under the Constitution to lead the state's private schools, or parochial schools, or home schools, or unschools. It's in plain English. Which we still teach in South Carolina, right? Isn't it one of the subjects that's tested eight times a week?

If Zais didn't want to do that job, maybe he shouldn't have run for office.

Nevertheless, EAG swallowed Zais's line whole, then cast Zais as a one-man conservative army against a tide of "politically weak" educators and local leaders.

While state superintendents such as Zais have the power to advocate for education reforms, the decision-making power rests with the state legislators. South Carolina is a politically conservative state, but that doesn’t mean Zais’ reforms will be warmly embraced.

His strongest opposition will likely come from local school officials, who wield a surprising amount of political power in the state.

South Carolina is a “right-to-work” state, which means teachers are not required to join their local union. That renders the South Carolina Education Association and the Palmetto State Teachers Association politically weak.

However, the state’s superintendents all belong to the South Carolina Association of School Administrators, and every school board member belongs to the South Carolina School Boards Association. The SCASA and the SCSBA fill the left-wing power vacuum created by the anemic teacher unions.
...
Given the groups’ unique role in South Carolina’s education system, school districts pay for their school board officials and superintendents to become members of these organizations.

As a result, the two associations have multi-million dollar budgets, which allow them to hire a number of lawyers and lobbyists to represent their interests.

In the end, writes EAG, there's Zais the heroic warrior, blocking these "politically weak" educators from dominating the state as they have... er, from dominating... um, well, actually, from not dominating anything.

But after building him up as a conquering avenger, and making the case that he really doesn't have any strong opponents to conquer, EAG is left to offer a summary that's as weak as Zais's own testimony before legislative committees: "He is popular with the people," and "for the first time, the state superintendent office doesn’t serve as the de facto headquarters of the SCSBA or the SCASA.”

That's funny, I don't recall that Superintendents Jim Rex, Inez Tenenbaum or Barbara Nielsen took their marching orders from SCSBA or SCASA, either.

Zais will likely have this article framed for hanging in the office. It's better than anything The State will do for him.

Purge at DOE concerns education leaders

News that Superintendent Mick Zais has initiated a purge of staff members at the Department of Education has left state education leaders concerned about the loss of programs and services, not to mention the loss of more jobs.

Superintendent of Education Mick Zais, the first Republican to hold the post since 1998, is evaluating and overhauling the department and consolidating two of its five divisions.
...
Those 50 employees represent nearly 13 percent of the agency's non-transportation employees. Their jobs ranged from administrative assistants to office directors to deputy superintendents.

Zais has not released "a breakdown of employee positions by division." But word is circulating, naturally. Each "voluntary resignation or retirement" represents an educator without a job.

"We're very concerned that personnel in the Office of School Safety are gone," said Molly Spearman, director of the S.C. Association of School Administrators. "That affects mentoring, character education, bullying prevention, federal rules to make sure homeless students are being taken care of."

Ragley said the functions of the department will not be impacted by the cuts.

"The work is still going to get done," he said. "The responsibilities have been added on to other people's jobs."

That's a long-revered strategy among overseers of labor in South Carolina, one called "the stretchout." Cut your workforce as a cost-saving measure AND as an intimidation tool against those left with jobs: Do the extra work, or you'll be cut in the next go-round.

It's why we'll likely not hear anyone still employed at the Department complaining of their predicament. No doubt this round of cuts has put a chill on any dissent there may have been. No doubt, too, that Zais has eyes and ears on every floor of the Rutledge Building.

Those outside the building aren't afraid to speak up, however.

Debbie Elmore, spokeswoman for the S.C. School Boards Association, said her organization wished the department had done a better job of communicating news of the changes to school districts.

"It's not unexpected for personnel and other changes to occur anytime there is a change in leadership," Elmore said. "However, what has been disappointing is the department's lack of transparency and communication about the state superintendent's ongoing restructuring plan, personnel changes, and more importantly, how they may or may not impact support services to districts and schools."

The South Carolina Constitution guarantees that the state will provide a system of public education to all the state's children.

This is what happens when apathy and ignorance on Election Day installs at the helm of that system someone without experience in South Carolina's public school classrooms, who has never supported public schools and who actively works to dismantle the programs and services they provide to children.

And we're only seven months into his four-year term of office. If Zais can inflict this much damage in seven months, will there be a system left when his term ends?

Is that his goal?

Educators: Zais 'cutting off our nose to spite our face'

Having failed to convince Superintendent Mick Zais and Governor Nikki Haley of the most appropriate course of action, leaders of the state's school boards association and school administrators association are taking their argument to South Carolina's opinion leaders and citizens.

Paul Krohne and Molly Spearman, executive directors of the School Boards Association (SCSBA) and Association of School Administrators (SCASA), respectively, have published a joint opinion-editorial in at least two newspapers today, The State and the Myrtle Beach Sun-News, to argue that Zais should try, at least, to compete for up to $50 million in federal "Race to the Top" funds.

"Race to the Top" is an Obama administration initiative, administered by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, to target federal resources to states that agree to various education reforms. The recipe of reforms favored by the Obama administration would suggest that South Carolina is an ideal candidate for the funding, if only the superintendent would apply for it. But Zais isn't interested.

The effective result is that federal taxes being paid by South Carolinians will be used by states that do apply for, and win, the funding.

Krohne and Spearman write,

South Carolinians, in the tradition of the late Senator Strom Thurmond, have always recognized the folly in sending our own tax dollars to the federal government only to have them forwarded to other states. The baffling tendencies of today's state leaders to stand rigidly on their ideology, even when federal money can be used for the good of our people, is cutting off our nose to spite our face.

We understood the illogic of this approach two years ago when Gov. Mark Sanford protested the federal stimulus by attempting to leave South Carolina's share on the table, even though our taxpayers would pay the cost.

Unfortunately, our current leaders are following exactly in his footsteps.

I think Ralph Waldo Emerson captured this pattern best when he wrote, in "Self-Reliance," "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

The announcement by State Superintendent of Education Mick Zais that he will not pursue up to $50 million in funding under the federal Race to the Top program, quickly noted and celebrated in the eight other states invited to apply, will hamper educational progress here and fuel it elsewhere, for no good reason.

His excuse - that federal money means federal dictates - has little relevance in this case. Unlike many federal initiatives, Race to the Top was designed specifically to encourage state-level ingenuity, and is remarkably hands-off and state-driven.

Our state's application in fact reflects our state's own longstanding needs, priorities identified and wished for long before federal funding made them a possibility. Several of the innovations we have proposed are exactly the kinds of reforms Zais supports, including improving the quality and transparency of education data, encouraging our best teachers to work in schools that need them most, and creating a system of teacher pay that is based less on credentials and more on performance. Many of our priorities are infrastructure needs suitable for one-time funding, not new bureaucracies that impose ongoing costs.

Message: Some people just can't take 'yes' for an answer. To collaborate with educators -- which certainly would be interpreted by Zais's base as buckling to the status quo -- would only encourage educators to expect future collaboration. This defies the command-and-control manner to which Zais is accustomed. (Word from Newberry seems to support this view...)

And it gets worse. If there is little sense in opposing the Race to the Top initiative, there is none at all in rejecting direct assistance to schools to retain teaching positions. South Carolina has the distinct title of being the only state in the nation to leave on the table millions of dollars designed specifically to preserve teaching jobs in the leanest economy any of us can recall, preventing the devastating layoffs and furlough days nearly every district has experienced in recent years.

The $144 million allocated under federal "Edujobs" legislation is enough to save more than 2,500 teaching jobs, or two thirds of the positions lost over the course of the recession. Thanks to last year's massive cuts in higher education spending, South Carolina can't access that badly needed funding without a congressional waiver, sought by our delegation last year at Superintendent Jim Rex's request. Zais has abandoned any such effort, which his staff has described as "a dead issue."

Every point made by Krohne and Spearman here is valid because they are rooted in logic and reason. But we do not function in a system governed by logic and reason; Haley, Zais and their sycophants operate in a parallel, Bizarro universe where the goal is to reduce the number of teachers teaching in public school classrooms, not to increase them; to raise the teacher-student ratio, not to lower it; to weaken the public education system they swore to support, not to strengthen it.

Unfortunately, South Carolina is not our world -- it's theirs. We only live in it.

Of course, until they change the Constitution to exclude us, we get to vote in it.

It's clear that Krohne and Spearman understand this. Their message isn't to the saved but to the uncommitted:

And yet, like Gov. Sanford before him, Zais apparently leaves significant wiggle room in his ideology to support the projects he favors. He has been quick to applaud the millions of dollars in federal funding awarded to South Carolina to establish charter schools, with no talk of bureaucracy, Washington footprints, or "pieces of silver" exchanged for federal "strings."

At best, there is an alarming confusion in the priorities of an administration that won't take federal assistance to sustain the teachers and schools we already have, but is happy to accept it to support a political agenda.

It's an undisputed fact that few states have educational needs as pressing as South Carolina's. Poverty rates, high at the beginning of the recession, are rising every year, creating new challenges for schools even as state funding has declined. We are losing teachers, increasing class sizes, and cutting academic programs, at a time when we urgently need to improve achievement.

Our state and national leaders need to recognize that South Carolina's resources are far too limited and our needs far too great to help fund schools in other places at the expense of our own. There is no acceptable reason not to give our schools and students our strongest support.

Indeed. Educators, unite.