Legislative wrecking crew uses small hammers first, says SC Radio Network

Reporter Matt Long of the South Carolina Radio Network took note this week of several small changes to education policies that make incremental progress on the road to dismantling public education as we know it.

One of the changes listed by Long is a plan to exempt school districts from various state regulations, including -- you guessed it -- personnel cuts, or "several mandates the state requires that cost schools extra money for additional teachers and other faculty."

School district employees are no longer necessary to the instructional process; nowadays then just "cost schools extra money."

It’s hard to cut expenses when your biggest expenses are… salaries. You’ve got to have all of these people there who may, or may not, be classroom-related. You can free some of that up. That’s the thinking behind it.

Especially when parents expect the professionals in their children's classrooms to be certified: That costs even more money, so it shouldn't be required at all.

Under the bill, districts would apply for permission from the state Department of Education to exempt themselves from certain regulations, such as physical education or requiring certified teachers in non-core classes.

Why demand a certification from teachers in non-core classes? You really only need your core teachers to be certified. It's like saying that so long as the surgeon operating on your heart is certified, the nurses and anesthesiologist don't have to be. Certified anesthesiologists add unnecessary expense to the bill -- as do unnecessarily certified dental assistants, and paralegals, and commercial contractors.

Another big change is to the window-dressing of the budget's education section, if you believe taking down the heirloom drapes and replacing them with a fleece blanket is an appropriate change to the window-dressing.

The House passed a bill in early March that would simplify how the EFA funds districts, by eliminating lines in the budget and giving more to schools in five lump sums. That proposed change has already passed the House and is currently in the Senate.

This is exactly what former Governor Mark Sanford proposed several years ago, in the name of flexibility. In fact, Sanford's definition of flexibility included overall cuts to programs. If legislators are taking up Sanford's old proposal, it means two things: Schools will have fewer dollars to spend on teaching children, and lawmakers subconsciously wish Sanford was still in office.

Yet another proposed change: "Diploma" will no longer mean "diploma."

When I went to school, it was an article of faith in my family that I would graduate with a high school diploma. To fail that standard would mark my family with a stain of shame that would never come clean. I labored mightily to achieve it -- this means you, Algebra II -- and was exhausted, drained of all color and energy, when I marched with my class and collected that DIPLOMA. When I finally got a look at the real McCoy, I was surprised that it wasn't gilt-edged or gold-leafed.

According to Long's report, the "diploma" of today could be any one of several things -- like numbered "combo" options at a fast food restaurant -- from a "certificate of attendance" to the super-sized cheeseburger with fries and a jumbo Cherry Coke.

Right now, all students have to complete 24 credit units in order to graduate. However, Cooper said that was designed for students going to college.

He said officials are looking to create an alternative track for students who don’t plan to go to a four-year school.

"For kids who just want to go straight to work, or want to go to (technical college), or learn a trade, they can get a 20-unit diploma. That saves some money… for the districts, but it also would help with kids who drop out. They might go if they’ve only got to get 20 (credit units), instead of 24, to finish their degree."

He said legislators are also looking at creating a new diploma for special needs students, who are only presented with a “certificate of attendance” at the end of their high-school careers, regardless of how far they advance.

Does this mean there will be separate graduation ceremonies? Not likely, thanks to the present fiscal crisis.

From Rock Hill, a rational view of high school graduation rates

Editors of the Rock Hill Herald published an editorial yesterday that sounded downright rational.

At present, when students don't graduate high school, we sound the alarm, raise the red flag, count numbers, hold press conferences and then, at the end of the torturous process, blame the teachers. If firing some of them is a viable option, then we fire some of them, too. Then we check the sports page to see if the local team is playing at home or away this Friday.

But the Herald, quoting in part York County's superintendent, takes a refreshing new view:

The American tradition of attending high school for four years and then walking across a stage to collect a diploma seems to work well for most students. Even in schools with relatively low graduation rates, most students earn a diploma four years after starting 9th grade.

But Rock Hill schools Superintendent Lynn Moody says that while she understands why states compile records on graduation rates, the approach might be outdated.

"I am much more interested in how many students graduate - not when," Moody said. "What's magical about four years?"

But such a position is too rational for political discourse. There's no hook.

South Carolina's modern political rulebook is clear on this: For effective governing, there must be insult, then injury, then blame, then budget cuts and amendments, then teachers must lose jobs. When Johnny doesn't graduate high school in four years with a diploma and get a good low-paying job down at the plant, then the pattern can be followed: Johnny didn't graduate because he can't read, which is because he wasn't taught, which is because educators get paid too much, which means we have to cut the budget and amend the law, and fire a teacher. The system works. This is how people get elected to the legislature. Change any part of it, and the whole thing could fall apart. We will have chaos.

This is precisely what the Herald editors are unwittingly doing: changing a part of the pattern.

We think Moody also makes an important point. If some students can graduate in four and a half years of high school instead of just four, that shouldn't be a black mark for the school or the student.

The important thing is for students ultimately to learn the skills they will need to make their way in the world. For most, that will include going on to a two-year or four-year college or undergoing some special training beyond the high school level.

Skills needed to compete in the workplace have become more complex in recent decades, and, for most, high school no longer provides all a student needs to be successful.

We might be inclined to wring our hands about the dip in graduation rates across the state. But before we do, we need to consider all the factors involved in putting together the numbers.

In other words, declining graduation rates are considerably less worrisome if students are earning their degrees somewhere down the road.

I think it's safe to say the editors of the Herald will get an earful the next time they sit down with a certain new governor of South Carolina. Even-tempered, rational thinking of this sort is no way to shrink government and cut public sector jobs. Perhaps she will tell them that editors should stick to editing and leave the thinking to be done under the Capitol dome.