Heitsman: Haley's words and deeds are incongruent

Letter to The Editor
The State
Columbia, South Carolina 29202

The revelations The State newspaper has published concerning Governor Nikki Haley are proof that Governor Haley’s conservative positions are more con than serve and show the need for recall of public officials in South Carolina.

Her winning the governorship was predicated on several principles that she has abandoned in the short time she has been governor.

Her stance on fiscal responsibility does not apply to her own cabinet as she brings cabinet members on at a considerable increase from the salaries of Mark Sanford’s cabinet -- while she implores legislators to cut back on state pay for police, teachers, and doctors who actually help the citizens of South Carolina, not just the rich and well-connected.

Her accountability campaign proved to be an exercise in deceit since her committee to “fix” government in South Carolina meets behind closed doors in violation of both state law and her pledge of accountability.

Her promise to work with legislators, unlike her predecessor, resulted in a proposal to create a legislative report card so she can intimidate those legislators who have the courage to disagree with her. This winning through political intimidation shows that there are bullies inside the Statehouse as well as the school yards.

Finally, in what must be one of the most blatant examples of the arrogance of power in recent history the Governor has replaced Darla Moore on the University of South Carolina Board of Trustees with a Lexington attorney who’s service to the University was contributions to the Governor’s campaign.

It may be a little early but if anyone has a recall petition going I would like the opportunity to add my signature.

Sincerely,
William C. Heitsman
Darlington, SC

Mr. Kristof, visit South Carolina soon -- and bring your notebook

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote last week, "A basic educational challenge is not that teachers are raking it in, but that they are underpaid. If we want to compete with other countries, and chip away at poverty across America, then we need to pay teachers more so as to attract better people into the profession."

I stumbled over this late because the one South Carolina newspaper owned by the New York Times -- the Spartanburg Herald-Journal -- didn't carry Kristof's column on teacher compensation. I've puzzled over this, as one of the hot-button issues of the moment in our state is teacher compensation, and lawmakers are arguing loudly that it... must... be... curbed... if we are to keep our fiscal house in order. In fact, a bill that passed the House already and is rolling around in the Senate proposes to eliminate the salary schedule for educators entirely and move to a system of pay-for-test-scores -- so dire are our financial straits in South Carolina.

Be that as it may, Kristof is a thoughtful columnist -- a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner, after all -- and I'm sure his contribution to a discussion of teacher compensation is well-reasoned. So, for the benefit of others who didn't see his column of March 12, enjoy it here. Afterward, send a quick note to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal to offer your thoughts.

Until a few decades ago, employment discrimination perversely strengthened our teaching force. Brilliant women became elementary school teachers, because better jobs weren’t open to them. It was profoundly unfair, but the discrimination did benefit America’s children.

These days, brilliant women become surgeons and investment bankers — and 47 percent of America’s kindergarten through 12th-grade teachers come from the bottom one-third of their college classes (as measured by SAT scores). The figure is from a study by McKinsey & Company, “Closing the Talent Gap.”

Changes in relative pay have reinforced the problem. In 1970, in New York City, a newly minted teacher at a public school earned about $2,000 less in salary than a starting lawyer at a prominent law firm. These days the lawyer takes home, including bonus, $115,000 more than the teacher, the McKinsey study found.

We all understand intuitively the difference a great teacher makes. I think of Juanita Trantina, who left my fifth-grade class intoxicated with excitement for learning and fascinated by the current events she spoke about. You probably have a Miss Trantina in your own past.

One Los Angeles study found that having a teacher from the 25 percent most effective group of teachers for four years in a row would be enough to eliminate the black-white achievement gap.

Recent scholarship suggests that good teachers, even kindergarten teachers, increase their students’ earnings many years later. Eric A. Hanushek of Stanford University found that an excellent teacher (one a standard deviation better than average, or better than 84 percent of teachers) raises each student’s lifetime earnings by $20,000. If there are 20 students in the class, that is an extra $400,000 generated, compared with a teacher who is merely average.

A teacher better than 93 percent of other teachers would add $640,000 to lifetime pay of a class of 20, the study found.

Look, I’m not a fan of teachers’ unions. They used their clout to gain job security more than pay, thus making the field safe for low achievers. Teaching work rules are often inflexible, benefits are generous relative to salaries, and it is difficult or impossible to dismiss teachers who are ineffective.

But none of this means that teachers are overpaid. And if governments nibble away at pensions and reduce job security, then they must pay more in wages to stay even.

Moreover, part of compensation is public esteem. When governors mock teachers as lazy, avaricious incompetents, they demean the profession and make it harder to attract the best and brightest. We should be elevating teachers, not throwing darts at them.

Consider three other countries renowned for their educational performance: Singapore, South Korea and Finland. In each country, teachers are drawn from the top third of their cohort, are hugely respected and are paid well (although that’s less true in Finland). In South Korea and Singapore, teachers on average earn more than lawyers and engineers, the McKinsey study found.

“We’re not going to get better teachers unless we pay them more,” notes Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust, an education reform organization. Likewise, Jeanne Allen of the Center for Education Reform says, “We’re the first people to say, throw them $100,000, throw them whatever it takes.”

Both Ms. Wilkins and Ms. Allen add in the next breath that pay should be for performance, with more rigorous evaluation. That makes sense to me.

Starting teacher pay, which now averages $39,000, would have to rise to $65,000 to fill most new teaching positions in high-needs schools with graduates from the top third of their classes, the McKinsey study found. That would be a bargain.

Indeed, it makes sense to cut corners elsewhere to boost teacher salaries. Research suggests that students would benefit from a tradeoff of better teachers but worse teacher-student ratios. Thus there are growing calls for a Japanese model of larger classes, but with outstanding, respected, well-paid teachers.

Teaching is unusual among the professions in that it pays poorly but has strong union protections and lockstep wage increases. It’s a factory model of compensation, and critics are right to fault it. But the bottom line is that we should pay teachers more, not less — and that politicians who falsely lambaste teachers as greedy are simply making it more difficult to attract the kind of above-average teachers our above-average children deserve.

Here's hoping that Kristof makes it to South Carolina soon, and that he brings his notebook.

Transparency? State's business being recorded with 'invisible ink'

Sometimes The State nails it, drives home a great and appropriate point about how business gets done at the State House.

Today's an example: Cindi Ross Scoppe observes that while "Transparency, The Brand" is making quite a bit of headway, "Transparency, The Practice" has some miles yet to travel. The rules for conducting business in the chamber may have changed for the better, but more business is now being conducted before lawmakers get to the chamber -- and what's presented then is the ol' done-deal.

Is that what advocates of transparency had in mind?

Worse than the silly things the Legislature is doing in the name of transparency, though, is what isn’t getting done because the transparency campaign is fixated on spending. Except for recorded voting, all the advances have been about making it easier to access information that already was public, but our state still has woefully inadequate open-government and open-records laws.

City and county councils and school boards routinely meet in secret to discuss public business; they get away with it because the law lacks any way to prove they violated it — or punishment when it’s clear they did. Many quasi-public groups that are funded with tax money still refuse to acknowledge that the public has a right to know what they do.

Legislative caucuses legally lock the public out of meetings in which they decide what will be debated and passed. House and Senate leaders work out the details of important bills in secret meetings so they can avoid conference committees, which must meet in public.

Professional disciplinary boards keep complaints secret unless they decide to take action, making it impossible to tell whether they’re protecting the public or protecting their peers. Officials refuse to explain why they fire public employees.

Government agencies charge exorbitant fees for “compiling” records, in order to deter requests. When reporters test the law by asking to look at arrest documents without identifying themselves, they’re often turned down — demonstrating that even the parts of the law that work fairly well for journalists are routinely violated when ordinary citizens try to use it.

Yet in this the year of transparency, only a couple of bills have been introduced (besides roll-call voting legislation) whose purpose is to give the public access to more information, among them an absurd little measure to make the governor invite the public in when she meets with one of her appointees.

If there’s a campaign to make our government more open, it’s being waged with that invisible ink.

Charleston LWV takes on pay-for-test-scores Tuesday

Charleston has a long, storied history in public education; the first attempt at public education in the state -- funded by local businessmen, naturally, rather than state appropriations -- occurred there and offered instruction to both black and white pupils. Then this war came along and...

But I digress: Word comes from Charleston today that the local League of Women Voters is taking the bull by the horns and asking tough questions about the Haley-Zais plan to pay teachers according to their students' test scores. It sounds like a great place for Charleston County's teachers to spend their Tuesday evening, hearing what state leaders are proposing to do to them, and being heard in return.

Details:

A forum about measuring teacher performance and linking pay to performance will be presented Tuesday by the Charleston League of Women Voters.

The panel discussion, 'Getting the Best Teachers in our Classrooms: A Conversation on Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness' will be 6-8 p.m. at North Charleston City Hall.

Panel members are Dr. Janice Poda, former South Carolina education deputy superintendent and now strategic initiative director for Education Workforce at the Council of Chief State School Officers in Washington, D.C.; Dr. Fran Welch, dean of the College of Charleston's School of Education, Health and Human Performance; Judy Hammett, executive director of Leadership Development with the Berkeley County School District; and Lucy Beckham, principal of Wando High School and the 2010 MetLife/National Association of Secondary School Principals' National Secondary Principal of the Year.

The forum and reception are free and open to the public. Light refreshments will be offered from 5:30 to 6 p.m. in the Buist Room. For more information, call 766-5416.

Akerhielm: Why isn't public education a priority for our state?

Karen Akerhielm is a university instructor in Greenville and was published in the Greenville News during the weekend under a great headline: "Why isn't public education a priority for our state?" Her opinion-editorial may be the best and clearest analysis I've read of the current state of affairs in South Carolina regarding state lawmakers' support, or lack of it, for public education generally and specifically.

Read for yourself:

I was excited to read the recent column in The Greenville News that was titled, “South Carolina confronts its Sputnik moment.”

Would it be a column supporting research and development in new technologies? Maybe a call for investment in public infrastructure, or an emphasis on renewable resources and alternative energy sources? Imagine my surprise, and complete dismay, when I saw it was an op-ed in support of a private school tuition tax credit bill, which is currently under consideration by the South Carolina House and Senate.

Our state is in the midst of a serious financial crisis, with declining tax revenues and continued cuts in school budgets. Why would now be the time to introduce a bill that would further decrease available funding for our public schools by millions of dollars?

The five fundamental facts are:

1. The cuts in public school funding have been significant.

• Greenville County Schools’ funding from the state has been reduced by $53 million over the last two years, while student enrollment has increased by over 1,000 students.

• The district has responded by eliminating 356 positions, including 187 teachers, increasing the student-teacher ratio.

• There have been cuts in: science labs, computer labs, after-school environmental programs, tutoring, middle school language and music programs, instructional supplies, workbooks and copy paper.

• About a quarter of Greenville County’s school buses are more than 20 years old, with multiple breakdowns per day.

2. Tuition tax credits reduce state revenue, leaving fewer resources for public schools.

• In the proposed bill, the average tuition tax credit would equal $2,720, reducing the amount of money going to the state’s general fund, thus decreasing the total amount of funding the state has available for public schools. As determined by the South Carolina Board of Economic Advisors, the tuition tax credit bill introduced in the last legislative session would have resulted in a net revenue reduction of $128 million in the first year of full implementation.

3. The proposed tax credit will mainly benefit higher income families.

• The proposed bills in the S.C. House and Senate have no limit on family income. A family making $500,000 per year with a child in private school, will receive the credit.

• Tuition tax credits primarily benefit families with students already in private schools.

4. Some of our legislators are being influenced by large amounts of out-of-state, pro-voucher campaign financing.

• Most of the Greenville legislative delegation are sponsors of the proposed bills (Sens. Mike Fair, Phillip Shoopman, David Thomas and Danny Verdin; Reps. Eric Bedingfeld, Tom Corbin, Dan Hamilton, Phyllis Henderson, Dwight Loftis, Wendy Nanney, Garry Smith, Tommy Stringer and Mark Willis.) For some eye-opening information on out-of-state donations by pro-voucher forces to many of these legislators during the last two elections, go to http://buyingsc.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to “2010 Update” for the 2010 elections. You can click on “2008 Contributions” as well. Greenville County House Districts are 16 through 28, and Senate Districts 5 through 8.

5. There is no accountability to taxpayers for schools for which tuition tax credits are used.

• Unlike public schools, private schools do not face academic and financial accountability requirements by any state agency.

• Unlike public schools, private schools do not have to provide transportation, quality of education or acceptance of those “below grade level” or learning disabled. The credits will not help those students who lack transportation to the private school, who cannot afford the rest of the tuition beyond what the tax credit provides, or who cannot pass the entrance exam.

• There is no evidence that tuition tax credits improve student performance. The most extensive study of the impact of school vouchers — the current multiple year study of the Milwaukee voucher program — has found no increase in student achievement due to school vouchers.

To summarize, the bills currently under consideration by our Legislature, H3407 in the House and S414 in the Senate, will mainly serve to subsidize the tuition costs of families with children in private schools, will allow the use of a government benefit without any accountability to taxpayers, will not increase student achievement, and will have a large, negative impact on state revenues.

Our state will be spending more money and receiving no academic benefit in return, and we would be doing this while our state has found it increasingly unable to adequately fund our public schools.

Rather than a Sputnik moment, it seems to me that we have arrived at a moment of truth. Do we further erode our support and funding of public education by supporting tuition tax credits, or do we finally make public education a priority in our state, and ask that our legislators do the same?

First Steps works for children; will it suffer budget cuts as a result?

"Our ends are consequent upon our beginnings."

A famous person once said this, and it's a fancy way of saying that you cannot hit a home run from the dugout -- which is precisely the absurd challenge set forth for South Carolina's educators and children by lawmakers. Rick Noble, chief executive officer of Richland County First Steps to School Readiness Partnership, says something similar in a column posted at SCNow.com.

Thanks to his work with First Steps, Noble is cognizant of the importance of early childhood education. Thanks to his living in South Carolina, he's also cognizant that many state lawmakers give early childhood education the same regard they give mosquitoes.

In the more than 30 years I’ve lived here, we have talked the talk about education being the “highest priority” and the answer to many of our problems, whether it be poverty, job creation, dropout prevention, per capita income, criminal justice — and the list goes on and on. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand and take the opportunity that this crisis presents to walk the walk regarding education, and particularly early childhood education. While other states cut back on funding, this is South Carolina’s chance to catch up and get ahead. We need to say “no more cuts” to the most basic, fundamental government function of investing in human capital (a.k.a. our children), especially early childhood investments such as First Steps and public school 4K.

Noble is familiar with the ruling by Circuit Court Judge Thomas Cooper that "South Carolina’s constitution had been violated by inadequate intervention in early childhood to provide the 'opportunity for each child to receive a minimally adequate education'.”

"Minimally adequate" is South Carolina's way of saying it never intends to provide a great public education for every child, or even a good public education for every child, but rather will take a meager, pale facsimile of education, wring it tight and bone-dry, strip it of any color or funding, leave it to bleach and wither in the sun, then offer it to children as the best that we can afford, and tell them to make do with it -- or, if they don't like it, they can pack a bindle and move to North Carolina or Georgia.

'Cause that's how South Carolina's leadership rolls.

But Noble hopes for better from our legislators.

The state Supreme Court had previously defined “minimal adequacy” as “an opportunity to acquire the ability to read, write, and speak the English language, and knowledge of mathematics and physical science.” Judge Cooper emphasized children from poverty as the class deserving remedy, but did not examine what specific deficits required interventions. He was not prescriptive regarding the age range, mentioning “early childhood,” “pre-kindergarten programs” and “pre-kindergarten through grade 3.”

Recently S.C. First Steps released the results of a three-year evaluation of the impact its programs have in the 46 counties. The evaluation was conducted by High Scope, a well-respected national/international early childhood organization. Among the key findings in the 176-page report (available at www.scfirststeps.org /evaluations.htm):

• First Steps efforts are serving those most in need — those at the highest risk for not being ready for school.

• First Steps funds are being spent on well-documented, research-based programs that target and provide effective services to children and families at risk.

• First Steps is providing comprehensive services and programs that support and educate families in wide-ranging ways to increase school readiness.

Clearly, here's a program that seems to work, to meet the need it was designed to meet, and to provide the service needed to the children who need the service. In ANY other state in the land, this would be hailed as a great and effective program, and state funding would rain down upon it like summer showers. But here in South Carolina, positive results by a program designed to help poor children are a red flag: It shows lawmakers precisely where to cut.

Noble's column begs for the opposite, however:

In 2000-2001, S.C. elementary schools held back 5.3 percent of our children in the first, second and third grades statewide, and 4.7 percent in Richland County. That means South Carolina was spending as much as $100 million each year for 8,513 children to go through the same grade for a second time. By 2009-10, retention rates had dropped to 2.5 percent statewide and 2 percent in Richland County — decreases of 53 percent and 57 percent. On paper, this saves $3 million a year in Richland County and $49 million statewide.

So are our children “more ready” for school? The numbers suggest that they indeed are. Even though no single early childhood intervention entity can claim credit, certainly the combined efforts over the past 10 years are having positive results.

That’s a pretty good return on investment.

Each of us must do all we can to encourage our legislators not to abandon the single investment of government funds that pays such rich returns. Let’s tell them to draw a line in the sand and protect our children and improve our prospects in this state, this country and this world.

It seems clear what Gov. Nikki Haley, her leadership team and the General Assembly should do: Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow. Don’t stop now. Please don’t stop.

Here's the real and operative question: Does this program earn any profit for a private-sector corporation that contributes to the campaigns of our leaders? The answer to this question will point to way to continued state funding -- or its elimination.

Poll: SC voters oppose vouchers 2-to-1, want to improve schools

One of the nation's pre-eminent polling and research firms released a poll earlier this week on South Carolinians' attitudes toward vouchers, public education, job creation and other things. It turns out that the list of South Carolinians' priorities and the list of lawmakers' priorities is a mirror image of one another, if you put the mirror atop the list rather than beside it.

The pollster was Greensberg Quinlan Rosner, and they called 400 South Carolina adults during the first week of March. Their report is pithy but offers sufficient data and analysis to show that Gov. Nikki Haley's "The Movement" message and tour -- the series of pro-Haley rallies being held this week and next -- plays well to her base but doesn't speak to the mass of South Carolinians.

On vouchers, for example, a high priority for Haley and Education Superintendent Mick Zais, two out of three citizens say no: "Only 33 percent of South Carolina residents support a plan to “allow students and parents to choose a private school to attend at taxpayer expense,” compared to 64 percent of residents who oppose this plan."

SOUTH CAROLINIANS SEE A BETTER WAY TO IMPROVE SCHOOLS
Although South Carolina residents are opposed to private school voucher programs, they do believe there are a number of steps that can be taken to improve the quality of education in South Carolina. When read a list of proposals and asked “how much each would do to improve the quality of education” 79 percent of residents said increased parental involvement would do “a lot,” 60 percent said the same about improving teacher training, 55 percent about reducing class sizes, and 54 percent about expanding early childhood education. Only 25 percent of residents said providing private school vouchers would do a lot.

Plus, it appears voters aren't feeling Haley's "Movement" and wish that she would "move" the state in a different direction.

SOUTH CAROLINA RESIDENTS ARE UNHAPPY WITH STATE’S DIRECTION, WANT GOVERNOR, LEGISLATURE FOCUSED ON CREATING JOBS AND IMPROVING SCHOOLS.

The new survey also found that South Carolina residents are unhappy with the way things are going in the state. When asked whether they believe things are going in the right direction or are off on the wrong track, only 31 percent responded that things are going in the right direction compared to 54 percent who said things were off on the wrong track.

In addition, voters see their priorities for the state legislature as creating new jobs and improving South Carolina schools. After being read a list of things the Governor and State Legislature could focus on 39 percent said creating jobs and 25 percent said improving schools, should be the top priority, while only 15 percent said reducing government spending, 11 percent said improving health care, 3 percent said cutting taxes, 3 percent reducing crime, and 1 percent protecting the air, land and water. An additional 3 percent said they did not know which of these should be the priority.

When more than half a state's people believe their new governor and legislature are taking their state in the wrong direction, diligent leaders might sit up and take note; here in South Carolina, leaders take it as assurance that things are all right. After all, the most important poll is the one they conduct for several months during election years, and it includes only one question: "How much will you contribute to my campaign?"

Message to South Carolinians: There are better alternatives, but putting better alternatives in office requires that we register and vote.

1+1=2: Top-scoring nations hold teachers in high regard

The Associated Press is reporting today on a meeting taking place in New York City between education leaders from the United States and around the world to discuss best teaching practices.

Nations that outpace the United States in education use many strategies to help their students excel. They do, however, share one: They set high requirements to become a teacher, hold those who become one in high esteem and offer the instructors plenty of support.

On Wednesday and today, education leaders - including U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, the nation's largest teacher unions and officials from the highest-scoring countries - are meeting in New York to identify the best teaching practices.

The meeting comes after the recently released results of the Programme for International Student Assessment exam of 15-year-olds alarmed educators in the United States. Out of 34 countries, it ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math.

"On the one hand, the United States has a very expensive education system in international standards," said Andreas Schleicher, who directs the exam. "On the other hand, it's one of the systems where teachers get the lowest salaries.

"Then you ask yourself, how do you square those things?"

How indeed? We've all heard stories about the respect given to teachers in other nations. In India, for instance, a teacher is as respected as a physician, and more respected than attorneys.

Schleicher co-authored a report, released Wednesday during the conference, that concluded that for the U.S. to remain competitive, it must raise the status of the teaching profession. An additional report released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development identified several effective practices observed in the top-performing regions and countries:

-- They draw teachers from the same pool of applicants as those from other selective professional careers.

-- Higher teacher salaries - rather than smaller class sizes - were a better indicator of student performance.

-- Teachers are continually being trained and developing their skills as instructors.

-- Instructors are held accountable for student performance, but test results would be just one measure to determine student outcomes.

It's the same meeting covered yesterday by the New York Times, which quoted President Barack Obama saying, “In South Korea, teachers are known as ‘nation builders,’ and I think it’s time we treated our teachers with the same level of respect.”

But Schleicher, mentioned in the AP article, gave a dour view of America's regard for educators: “Teaching in the U.S. is unfortunately no longer a high-status occupation. Despite the characterization of some that teaching is an easy job, with short hours and summers off, the fact is that successful, dedicated teachers in the U.S. work long hours for little pay and, in many cases, insufficient support from their leadership.”

Ain't that the truth. Do you think Schleicher spent time writing his report in South Carolina?

On the most recent Pisa, the top-scoring countries were Finland and Singapore in science, Korea and Finland in reading and Singapore and Korea in math. On average, American teenagers came in 15th in reading and 19th in science. American students placed 27th in math. Only 2 percent of American students scored at the highest proficiency level, compared with 8 percent in Korea and 5 percent in Finland.

The “five things U.S. education reformers could learn” from the high-performing countries, the report says, include adopting common academic standards — an effort well under way here, led by state governors — developing better tests for use by teachers in diagnosing students’ day-to-day learning needs and training more effective school leaders.

“Make a concerted effort to raise the status of the teaching profession” was the top recommendation.

University teaching programs in the high-scoring countries admit only the best students, and “teaching education programs in the U.S. must become more selective and more rigorous,” the report says.

Raising teachers’ status is not mainly about raising salaries, the report says, but pay is a factor.

According to O.E.C.D. data, the average salary of a veteran elementary teacher here was $44,172 in 2008, higher than the average of $39,426 across all O.E.C.D countries (the figures were converted to compare the purchasing power of each currency).

But that salary level was 40 percent below the average salary of other American college graduates. In Finland, by comparison, the veteran teacher’s salary was 13 percent less than that of the average college graduate’s.

So in the world's top-scoring nations, teachers earn salaries close to those of doctors and lawyers, while in America they're paid like small-town preachers -- begrudgingly. And we wonder...

On this date: Gov. James F. Byrnes speaks to The SCEA, 1951

There was a time in South Carolina when public education was such a priority to statesmen, and educators were such a potent and valued human resource, that governors came to address teachers at their annual gatherings. But there was a time, too, when South Carolina's leaders were statesmen.

Such was the case sixty years ago today when one of South Carolina's true statesmen, Governor James F. Byrnes, addressed the representative assembly of The South Carolina Education Association. It was the first of two such addresses to this body, this one in the first year of his term -- less than two months after his inauguration, in fact -- and the second coming in the last year of his term.

For those unfamiliar with Byrnes, it is no exaggeration to call him one of the greatest of South Carolina's products in the twentieth century and, indeed, he played an active role in shaping that century. His election to the governor's office was merely the cherry atop a long and storied life in public service.

As a young Congressman, Byrnes became a close and trusted ally to President Woodrow Wilson. Though Byrnes was associated with Sen. "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman, it was Byrnes who often influenced the older Tillman -- and for the better -- rather than the other way round. As a U.S. Senator, he supported Franklin Roosevelt's bid for the presidency and Roosevelt rewarded him with a seat on the United State Supreme Court -- making him only the third South Carolinian to serve on that body, and the only South Carolinian on the Supreme Court in the twentieth century.

But life on the court was too restrictive, and he resigned the seat before his second anniversary in it, first leading Roosevelt's Economic Stabilization Office, then the Office of War Mobilization. His influence was so great -- and his relationship with Roosevelt so close -- that he was nicknamed "Assistant President." Byrnes was believed to be Roosevelt's choice for vice president on the 1944 ticket, until Roosevelt chose Sen. Harry Truman of Missouri instead. Still, it was Byrnes who came with Roosevelt to the "Big Three" Conference at Yalta in 1945, and Byrnes served as Truman's Secretary of State until 1947.

To place Byrnes in more particular context, consider this: Upon his resignation as Secretary of State, he was succeeded by George Marshall, author of the "Marshall Plan" that rebuilt postwar Europe. Byrnes's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court is now held by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

So it was this statesman and confidante to three presidents who held South Carolina's chief executive office in 1951 -- taking over from former Governor Strom Thurmond, no less -- and who spoke to South Carolina's educators in Columbia sixty years ago today. As governor, the quality and easy access of the state's public schools to its children were paramount concern. As a former associate justice of the Supreme Court, he understood the gathering storm around public education as a civil right. As a native South Carolinian and politician, he understood the volatility of integration as a political issue, and he positioned himself as one earnestly seeking to equalize the quality of schools for black and white children, under a segregated system.

"It has been three-fourths of century since South Carolina faced a problem more serious than the one we face today," he began. "After the War for Southern Independence, reconstruction was a tremendous task. Second only to that is the task now confronting us to provide adequate educational facilities for the children of our State."

For those children we must provide new school buildings, more teachers, and better transportation. And we must try to preserve the Public School System. Every child in the State, white or colored, should have the opportunity for a full public school education. It must be our goal to see that each of them accepts that opportunity.

South Carolina must go forward. It cannot go forward without a new educational program. You cannot lift the State economically without raising the educational level of the people. Statistics will show that in the states where there is the greatest illiteracy there is the smallest per capita income.

I am sure you and all other South Carolinians were humiliated recently to read that during a three-months period last fall the rejection rate of draftees for military service, due to mental causes, was higher in South Carolina than in any other State in the Union. More than 60 percent of the men in this State were rejected. The rejection rate was 35 percent for the rest of the South.

I am convinced this humiliating rejection rate was due not so much to lack of intelligence as to lack of education.

Byrnes cited a litany of numbers: children going without education, never enrolling in schools; lamenting the poor shape of existing schools, and the "shifts" required of its instructors to serve all of their pupils; the fact that South Carolina was home to more school-age children than any other Southern state; and the fact that some classrooms were packed with 40 children.

So Byrnes described his proposed campaign for school construction and other educational improvements. He concluded that greater tax revenues were necessary to fund this program, so he advocated for the issuance of $75 million in bonds, and the implementation of a new sales tax, to finance it -- regardless of the political fallout.

But he recognized there were be vehement opposition to raising tax revenues to do what was inherently right, and he addressed it:

Naturally there is opposition to the Sales Tax. There is opposition to every tax, but I have failed to find any man who is really in favor of improving our educational facilities who will suggest a substitute tax plan.

I can understand the position of the man who thinks it is a waste of money to educate the children of people he calls "common people." He is willing that we should continue to have more illiteracy than any state in the Union. I disagree with him but I understand him.

I cannot understand the position of the man who says he is in favor of increasing teachers' salaries, improving the transportation system, constructing new school buildings, and yet opposes the sales tax and offers no substitute. He wants to help the children -- provided it does not cost him anything.

That cannot be done. It will cost money. But the education of our children is the primary duty of our State just as National Defense is the primary duty of the Federal Government.

When we properly discharge our duty, we make more difficult the task of those who would have the Federal Government control our schools.

Other Southern states have had to meet this problem. Practically every state in the South now has a sales tax. It is argued by some that it will be a greater burden to the poor. The benefits will be greater to the poor. It is among them that we find large families and their children cannot be sent to private schools.

Schools in our cities, as a rule, are well equipped. The schools in our small towns and rural areas are not. The one teacher schools in rural areas, having not more than 15 or 20 pupils cannot secure good teachers. Our people must realize that these schools should be consolidated. I want the boys and girls of small towns and rural areas to have opportunities in life equal to the boys and girls of cities.

Men and women who receive little or no education participate in the election of those who govern this State. Government will only be as intelligent as the electorate. Moreover, the cities of South Carolina cannot prosper economically unless the peoples of the rural areas are educated and can increase their incomes. The improvement of conditions in rural sections is of vital concern to every city.

Just as pressing was the issue of equal schools for children of both races, and Byrnes -- who might have voted on these matters himself if he'd remained on the Court -- spelled out his expectations:

Last spring there were pending in the United States Supreme Court two cases brought by Negroes, one against the University of Texas and one against the University of Oklahoma. These cases were based on the charge that facilities furnished Negroes of the Negro colleges of the two states were not equal to the facilities furnished in colleges for whites. The United States Government was not involved in the suit. However, the attorney general filed an argument. He did not ask for equal facilities. On behalf of the United States Government he asked that the Court abolish segregation in State supported colleges. The Court did not decide this issue. It held it was no necessary to the disposition of the cases in which the petitioners asked only for equal facilities.

Last fall, after the election of this Legislature, some Negroes who had brought a suit against Clarendon County, asking for equal facilities, abandoned that suit. But they instituted a new suit, asking that the provisions of our constitution and statutes requiring separate schools for the races, be held unconstitutional.

...
That case will be tried before a three-Judge Court in Charleston the last week of May. I do not see how a Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals and two District Judges can reverse a decision of the Supreme Court which has been the law of the land for more than a half century. They may express their desire to do so but only the Supreme Court can reverse a decision of the Supreme Court.

No matter what may be the decision of the Court in Charleston, the case will go to the Supreme Court of the United States. My hope is that the record to be considered by that Court will show that regardless of how we may have failed in the past to provide substantially equal facilities, that a courageous and forward looking Legislature has enacted a law providing an educational program that will improve facilities for Negro children as well as for white children. I hope, too, it can show that the Governor of this State has said he will use what influence he has to accomplish that end.

Then, adopting the same strident tone that Sen. Thurmond would adopt in his failed bid for the presidency in 1948, Byrnes declared that South Carolina "will not now nor for some years to come, mix white and colored children in our schools. In the Reconstruction Days, a carpetbag government tried to do it and failed. A Democratic administration cannot now do what a Republican administration could not then do."

His next words were a strange admonition of things to come, far and long beyond the fight for civil rights and even into the century he wouldn't live to see: "If the Court changes what is now the law of the land, we will, if it is possible, live within the law, preserve the public school system, and at the same time maintain segregation. If that is not possible, reluctantly we will abandon the public school system."

He predicted that under such circumstances, school buildings "could be sold or leased" by the state, perhaps to parochial school interests. He imagined that the state might return the amount of tax revenues then being spent on public schools to parents, and "permit them to pay for the education of their children."

He acknowledged, "The difficulty, of course, is that many of those who most need education would not be sent to school. Now we find it difficult to get many children to attend free schools."

He told educators that he did not want these speculations to come to fruition, but he understood South Carolina's people and their predilections. In his conclusion, he turned to the state's educators for aid, and delivered sentiments that sound absolutely foreign to modern educators' ears:

No matter how serious may be the problems ahead of us, I know that the State can rely upon the loyal and intelligent assistance of the teachers of our schools.

I have an exalted idea of the importance of your profession. I resent the charge that this Association has no purpose other than to make efforts to increase your salaries. You fashion the thinking of the children of our State. You influence their lives. I believe you have at heart the future of your pupils, as well as your own future. I believe from your group meetings here you have benefitted and will be better able to help your schools.

The life of a teacher must be a life of sacrifice. To teach you must spend four years at college, and, in addition, you must continue to study as long as you teach. The college graduate who enters your profession cannot hope to receive the compensation of the doctor, the lawyer, the bricklayer, and the plumber. You may receive compensation equal to that of a preacher. You are entitled to compensation that will enable you to maintain a standard of living demanded by your profession. But, you do have a compensation greater than your financial reward. You see your pupils go out into the world. When one makes good in life, it must bring to you a satisfaction second only to the satisfaction of the parents of that pupil.

I ask God to bless you. I ask it with earnestness because upon you depends in great measure the character of the men and women who will guide this State in the days ahead of us.

Among Jimmy Byrnes's great gifts was prescience, as his predictions largely came to pass: The Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education changed the expectations of South Carolina's system of public education, to the anger and resentment of many citizens. The several years it took to integrate the schools gave segregationists time to establish "segregation academies," many of which still exist. Byrnes's premonition that the state would abandon its public school system is still playing out today, despite a few progressive spasms -- Governor Richard Riley's statesmanly efforts spring to mind -- in the intervening years. And his speculation that lawmakers would attempt to divert public funds to private schools has come to life in the form of vouchers, "opportunity scholarships" and "tuition tax credits."

It was a powerful presentation, delivered by a gifted and skillful state leader, to those he considered to stand among the state's most important citizens -- for their impact on the state's most precious element, its children.

That, it seems, is history.

Haley praises state's 'right to work (for less)' status in Rock Hill

Governor Nikki Haley held a rally -- or, a town hall meeting -- in Rock Hill on Monday night, promoting her track record as governor and inviting fans and others to ask questions about her. The Rock Hill Herald, which recommended Sen. Vince Sheheen for governor in its November 1 edition, covered the event and reported that not all questions came from fans.

It appears the governor is a Van Halen fan; the Herald noted that the governor took the stage to the triumphant strains of Van Halen's "Right Now," a song from the group's album "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge."

Then she hit the stage, reviewing her 2011 legislative report card - the tool she's using to urge legislators to support her agenda and push legislation through quickly.

The state's House of Representatives already has earned check marks on the report card, which was blown up on a display behind her.

The measures include requiring legislators to record their votes, allowing the governor to appoint the state superintendent of education, and creating a department of administration to merge duplicated functions in government agencies such as human resources and information technology.

Van Haley got quickly to business -- no pun intended -- and praised South Carolina's 'right to work' status -- which many, many, many workers recognize as 'right to work for less' -- and said the corporate heads she's been talking with appreciate that South Carolina "keep[s] the unions out."

Haley's youth and lack of awareness of South Carolina's history may be forgiven; she might do well to read any of the marvelous histories of South Carolina by D.D. Wallace, Lewis T. Jones, Ernest M. Lander Jr, or even Walter Edgar, to collect a deeper understanding of the role played by folks outside corporate boardrooms in building South Carolina and contributing to its economy. I'd draw her attention particularly to the massacre of Chiquola Mills workers in Honea Path in 1934, and the closing of Darlington Manufacturing Company in 1956 by the late conservative rainmaker and billionaire Roger Milliken.

The Herald reports that at least one person attending the rally had a different point of view, and shared it, leading Haley to refine her comment.

"Jobs, jobs, jobs," have been her top priority, she said, adding that all week she's been on the phone with corporations eager to come to South Carolina.

"They love the fact that we're a right-to-work state and keep the unions out," she said to applause.

At least one man in the audience didn't approve.

"A lot of good people who helped build this town and this community are union members," he said.

"I'm not against unions," Haley retorted. "I'm for us being a right-to-work state."

Though the new governor diagnosed the state's economy as ill, as she did throughout her campaign of 2010, she brought no cure, but said she'd bring physicians from Washington, D.C., to treat it.

Regarding how to fix the state's "band-aided" tax system, Haley did not have specifics Monday night.

The state is bringing in "think tanks out of Washington to help see what's the best tax structure for South Carolina." This fall we will know more, she said. Haley said she will not support raising taxes.

I can understand why Haley opposes raising taxes; tax revenues supply the state's budget and therefore provide needed services to the citizens she pledged to serve. A scheme of this sort creates no profit for those whose wealth undergirds South Carolina's power structure, therefore it must be opposed at all cost.

While she was at it, Haley struck at another apparition: evil educators whose meager salaries and benefits (which fall well below the national average, mind you) cost too much money, and state retirees -- like lunchladies who worked for four or five decades and now depend on tiny monthly checks to keep the lights on -- who represent a drain on the system.

Haley said she wants to give teachers merit-based bonuses based on reviews by their principals and other teachers.

She also wants to change funding for public education so it's need based instead of being determined by "where you're born and raised," where schools in wealthy areas surpass poorer areas in support and quality.

A state employee asked how her pension will be impacted by Haley's proposed reform to the state retirement system.

New state employees who haven't been hired yet will be hit hardest, she said, "because they're going to work harder, they're going to get less, and they're going to have to contribute more."

Haley said she's trying to protect state employees' retirement and asked them to "have faith" because "the next few years are going to hurt a little bit."

Translation: Don't worry, be happy with less.

Haley threw red meat to middle- and upper-class citizens who can afford cable television and dvds when she advocated eliminating funding for SCETV.

"We are past the age when we need public television. We've got the Internet. We've got DVDs," Haley said to applause.

Presumably, poorer citizens whose wages don't spare room for basic cable or $20 dvds should go to a neighboring state for the non-commercial programming that public television offers.

None of state's congressmen support most-popular revenue plan

According to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken on March 2, 81 percent of Americans support putting a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year. Seeing that the vast majority of Americans favor such a notion, and the needs for federal aid to states stands at an all-time high, U.S. Rep. Jean Schakowsky of Illinois has drafted a bill to do precisely that.

Schakowsky has collected support in the form of co-sponsors for her bill from across the land, from Raul Grijalva in Arizona to Keith Ellison of Minnesota, to John Yarmuth of Kentucky and Steve Cohen of Tennessee, to Donna Edwards of Maryland and Pete DeFazio of New York, and others. Missing from her list of co-sponsors is a single name from South Carolina.

Here again, an idea identified by a majority of Americans as a good one is decidedly out-of-favor here at home.

Income inequality in America is the worst we’ve seen it since 1928. Wages have stagnated for middle and lower income families despite enormous gains in productivity. Where has all the money gone?

“In the United States today, the richest 1% owns 34 % of our nation’s wealth – that’s more than the entire bottom 90%, who own just 29% of the country’s wealth,” said Rep. Schakowsky. “And the top one-hundredth of 1% now makes an average of $27 million per household per year. The average income for the bottom 90% of Americans? $31,244. It’s time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share, which is why I introduced the Fairness in Taxation Act. This isn’t about punishment or revenge. It’s about fairness. It’s about avoiding budget cuts that harm middle class families and those who aspire to it. We can choose to cut education, job creation and health care, or we can choose to ask those who can contribute more to do so.”

Is it the case that South Carolina's population includes so many millionaires that their numbers outweigh the will and needs of the remainder? Is that what holds back our legislative delegation in Washington from supporting a popular tax proposal?

I stood last Saturday among the 2,500 at the State Capitol in Columbia and, honestly, though I didn't do a poll of the rally crowd, I doubt there was a single millionaire present.

And to date, I haven't seen a single protest or demonstration organized by or for South Carolina's millionaires.

The current top tax bracket begins at $373,000 in income and fails to distinguish between the “well off” and billionaires – like the top 20 hedge fund managers whose average income last year was over $1 billion.

The Fairness in Taxation Act asks enacts new tax brackets for income starting at $1 million and ends with a $1 billion bracket. The new brackets would be:

* $1-10 million: 45%
* $10-20 million: 46%
* $20-100 million: 47%
* $100 million to $1 billion: 48%
* $1 billion and over: 49%

The bill would also tax capital gains and dividend income as ordinary income for those taxpayers with income over $1 million.

Schakowsky has even lined up support from some conscientious millionaires:

“I think very wealthy people like me should pay substantially higher taxes, since we have done exceedingly well in the last few decades,” said Katharine Myers, a millionaire from Pennsylvania whose income comes from royalties from the Myers-Briggs personality test, created by her mother-in-law, which she has managed with Peter Myers since the 1980s. “Our taxpayer-funded government contributed to my success.” Myers has been a supporter of United for a Fair Economy and its Responsible Wealth project for many years.

But none from those elected to represent impoverished South Carolinians in Congress.

Congresswoman Schakowsky has shown that there is another way,” said Steve Wamhoff, tax expert from Citizens for Tax Justice. “Her proposal would make the federal income tax more progressive by introducing higher rates for taxpayers with income in excess of $1 million. Millionaires have benefited disproportionately from the tax cuts enacted over the past decade, so it seems entirely reasonable that they share in the sacrifices needed to get our fiscal house in order.”

“The budget cuts being debated in Washington shamefully require middle class families to pay the price for the recklessness of the Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers who broke our economy,” said Brian Miller, Executive Director of United for a Fair Economy. “Instead of punishing middle class families and de-funding America, the Fairness in Taxation Act asks those who have benefitted so heavily from the economic bounce of Wall Street to share responsibility for getting our nation's finances on track.”

“Any sensible program for deficit reduction must begin with changing the massive tax cuts for the very wealthy,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future. “Those tax give-aways were a major cause of our current deficit. In an era of excessive inequality we should end Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. We need progressive revenues not just to bring down deficits, but also to finance investments in job and sustainable growth. The introduction of the Fairness in Taxation Act is an important step that will be popular with the American people.”

Are there any conscientious members of Congress representing South Carolina? Even one?

HR director: Schools fail to produce enough compliant workers

Oconee County's economic development director sympathized with a local human resources director this week over the poor pool of applicants for factory jobs, saying, "We have to have a work force that will come to work every day, on time and sober. And that’s a problem.”

Jim Alexander, Oconee's economic development director, was echoing the sentiments of Dave Baker, industrial personnel manager at BorgWarner in Seneca.

BorgWarner is "a leading independent global designer and producer of transfer cases and torque management devices for all-wheel drive passenger cars, crossover vehicles, sports-utility vehicles and light trucks." The company employs about 17,400 worldwide, including about 430 employees in Seneca. In 2006, it reported sales of $4.6 billion worldwide.

A number of factors weigh against the applicant pool, Baker said: illiteracy, a high high-school dropout rate, and an increase in applicants with a criminal record.

He said these factors make it harder to make good hires in a market where he has to seek what he calls “fresh blood,” younger workers, those with less experience and those with no experience, because older skilled workers aren’t looking for new jobs.

Given that workers with an eye on their fiscal circumstances often go where wages and benefits are best, Baker may have suggested to the Independent Mail that BorgWarner's offer isn't competitive -- at least not as sweet to more mature workers as it to the "fresh blood" he mentioned.

“It’s harder now for me to hire away from other companies,” Baker said. “If the older workers have jobs they’re staying put.”

As a result, companies are lowering their hiring standards; a criminal history for beating one's spouse is less of an obstacle to successful placement at the factory, for example.

The hard market means some requirements have to be softened, Baker said. A criminal domestic violence conviction 20 years ago, for instance, is less of a black mark than one two years ago.

The State features advocate of effective education reform

Today's edition of The State features, among others, Six Mile resident Paul Odom, who was one of the 2,000-plus attendees rallying at the State Capitol yesterday for a "moral budget" and against further cuts to public services, especially public education.

Paul Odom drove 130 miles to Columbia on Saturday, paid $15 for a “Get EER Done” T-shirt and held two signs, one in each hand, high over his head for roughly 2,000 people to read: “Stop the Cuts.”

EER refers to the Effective Education Reform Act, a series of proposed bills and regulations that would improve working conditions for teachers. “Stop the Cuts” was the rallying cry of the South Carolina Education Association and a half-dozen other groups during a two-hour rally at the State House calling on state lawmakers to adopt “a moral budget.”

Odom isn’t a teacher. He isn’t married to one, and he is not the son of one, either. But he is the father of three children who went to public schools and graduated from college (Duke, Erskine and USC).

“Everybody needs to be in this together,” he said. “The folks who make the most money should, in my eyes, pay their fair share.”

Odom was also one of several who explained to The SCEA in a film clip why he'd traveled so far to participate in the event. His comments are seen below:

Click here for the rest of The State's coverage of the rally.

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, others speak out in favor of a 'moral budget'

More than 2,000 educators and other public employees rallied at the State Capitol in Columbia on Saturday. Several explained their motivations on camera during and after the event.

Bernadette Hampton of Beaufort


Paul Odom of Six Mile


Kimberly Hunt of Richland County


Dreama Hunt of Horry County


Sherry East of Rock Hill


Lisa Hawkins of Florence


Mary Williams of Richland County

'Pay-for-test-scores' plan passes the House

Ivan Pavlov is known as the Russian physiologist who first described classical conditioning and behavior modification. You'll remember the image: Pavlov trained his dogs to salivate when he rang a bell.

(There's a great joke about this for dog lovers: One of Pavlov's trained dogs says to a new addition to the pack, "I've got Pavlov trained. Every time I salivate, he writes in a little notebook.")

The notion is that, provided particular stimuli, the trainee in question can be trained to perform a particular appropriate task. Early in the training, the trainee receives rewards for satisfactory performance or punishments for unsatisfactory outcomes.

This science has been long applied to animals -- mice and rats, famously, but also domesticated pets and primates. South Carolina's lawmakers now want to apply it to people.

A bill fresh from the South Carolina House of Representatives will eliminate the standard salary schedule by which certified educators have been paid for more than a generation -- roughly the length of time that South Carolina has, by law, supported a system of public schools. The vote for the bill sends clear messages to South Carolina's educators: Your degrees are no good here; your years of experience mean nothing; you'll be paid according to how well your students perform on standardized tests.

The bill presumes, presumably, that all children are created equal and all arrive at the schoolhouse door well-nourished, well-adjusted, well-equipped and eager to learn. Given this statewide population of Lake Wobegon's equally above-average young ones, our teaching force should be compensated according to whose students outperform the others. Lucky teachers with the highest performers will earn -- who knows? but it will be more than the rest -- and those whose children were slower to the draw will collect a commensurate gross salary. Thus, the first-year teacher assigned to teach AP Chemistry to honors students could, presumably, earn more than the 20-year veteran assigned to teach remedial English.

Under the House plan, so much depends upon the predisposition of an administrator in handing out teaching assignments, and the sheer luck of the draw in which students are enrolled in which schools. Certainly, no school administrator is subject any longer to the influence of a superintendent with a niece or nephew in need of a job -- especially in rural school districts, where a superintendent holds equal status to the sheriff or county council chair. Such blatant abuse of power and authority would be shamed and punished as soon as it's brought to light by... by whom? Who would bring such abuse to light?

In fact, South Carolina's colorful history is rife with instances of abuse of power, reported and unreported. It's likely that educators and other public employees in every nook and cranny of the state can point to cases in recent memory of gentlemanly agreements, mutual backscratching and one-hand-washing-the-other. In a culture where no real effort has been made to immunize ourselves of this abuse, no one seriously imagines that it won't be applied once "pay-for-test-scores" is implemented.

Tara Farmer, an 18-year classroom veteran, rightly declares the House plan "unrealistic."

"There's too many factors, and too many of them are beyond a teacher's control," said Farmer. "It's not that the teacher's not doing the best she can do, it's not that the student doesn't want to succeed, but there are a lot of factors out there that goes into whether a student's successful or not."

A report broadcast by WIS-TV this week points out that both Governor Nikki Haley and Superintendent of Education Mick Zais campaigned on "pay-for-test-scores" -- my term -- so to a large degree, the joke's on South Carolinians for electing candidates advocating this platform.

But there were legitimate reasons why wiser leaders long ago adopted the standard salary scheduled for certified educators. It placed the value on the quality of one's own commitment to education as represented by the college degrees, the graduate degrees, the additional credentials, and the length of service in the classroom. Once upon a time -- for a very long time -- a veteran educator with advanced degrees was a thing of great value; today, she is cast as an unnecessary drain on the public budget.

Misguided House members must believe that teachers of the future, like Pavlov's dogs, will perform the particular task at the appropriate stimuli in order to earn the yet-to-be-determined salary.

Question: Who will be the butt of the joke when students of the future, no different from students of today, sometimes fail to fill in the correct bubble on the standardized test?

Answer: South Carolina.

Surprise, surprise: 'No Child Left Behind' delivers its payload

Thursday's edition of the Spartanburg Herald-Journal highlighted remarks from U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan projecting that "more than 80,000 of the nation's 100,000 public schools could be labeled as failing under No Child Left Behind, the main federal law on public education."

This outcome is neither mysterious nor shocking.

Imagine that you were given a plot of land -- say, 100 acres -- and were provided all the bushel baskets you could fill.

Now imagine that you were told that you had to plant all the seed you were given, a combination of well-developed seed and stunted seed, genetically-enhanced seed and organic seed, and -- to top it off -- seeds from a variety of crops: radishes, lettuce, corn, carrots, soybeans, cotton and okra, all mixed together.

Now, though you're planting a variety of crops, imagine that you're only going to be judged on your harvest of radishes! And only on the highest grade of radishes.

And, to make this even more absurd and fascinating, let's say you're demanded to produce more and more radishes, year after year, still planting all the mixed-together seeds given to you annually!

And for each year that you don't produce more radishes than the past year, you're punished with less fertilizer the next year...

And after not making the grade, you're branded a low-performing farmer -- year after year after year -- and government authorities threaten to take away your hundred acres and your license to farm.

And now, after 10 years of this asinine system, the federal farm czar announces that 80 percent of farmers suffering under this system are failing at farming.

Would you be shocked at this outcome? And would the outcome be a mystery?

No reasonable person would.

Yet this was the system adopted in 2001:

The No Child Left Behind Act, introduced in 2001 by President George W. Bush and passed by Congress with bipartisan support, requires that all schools bring 100 percent of their students to proficiency in math and reading by 2014. Mr. Duncan has called this requirement “utopian.”

In other news, a few dogs barked at postmen in South Carolina, night followed day, and lawmakers looked for more ways to undermine and weaken the state's system of public schools.

South Carolina finds rock bottom; lawmakers dig harder

Andy Brack, publisher of the Statehouse Report, announced in the current edition of Free Times that South Carolina has beaten every other state in the union in a key economic indicator: the amount of tax revenue collected by our state.

Four years ago, according to the nonprofit Tax Foundation, South Carolina collected an average $1,894 per person in tax revenues -- an astoundingly low number when considering that the average includes all of South Carolina's taxpayers who are millionaires. That figure ranked us 44th out of 50.

But last year, we beat that by more than $300, as the state collected an average $1,577 per person and left us holding 50th position, dead last.

Brack explains how difficult it was for South Carolina to earn the distinction.

Over the past five years, state lawmakers have passed tax cuts worth $640 million annually, which has led so far to $1.42 billion in lower state revenues in the same time span. And if you think government has grown massively, it hasn’t. The state’s budget has grown an average of 1.4 percent over the past 15 years — the same rate as population growth, according to state figures.

That was a heavy lift, indeed, and lawmakers deserve full recognition for their work.

Not everyone is crowing over the win, Brack writes. The late Governor Carroll Campbell's chief economist, Harry Miley, is "flabbergasted." Campbell and Miley, longtime residents will recall, did much to move South Carolina's economy into the twentieth century. Miley's tone is far from celebratory: "...dead last on paying for government services? That just doesn’t seem very smart in the long run. You can’t fund your infrastructure. Your infrastructure crumbles.”

Brack finds some lawmakers who aren't happy with the ranking either, finding the average collection per citizen not low enough.

So, with news from the Tax Foundation that we collected less per capita at the state level in 2009 and we have just about the lowest tax burden per capita of anyone, you’d think state lawmakers would be throwing some kind of party.

Nope: They want to lower those awful, high taxes more, as witnessed by legislation introduced by state Rep. Jim Merrill (R-Berkeley) to cut property taxes on “just about anyone who bought property in South Carolina after 2006,” according to a March 3 story in the Post and Courier. His biggest ally: South Carolina realtors. The cost: A cut to cities, counties and schools of another $220 million to $260 million at a time when their budgets are reeling, too.

When rock bottom isn't low enough, how do you get lower? You dynamite the rock and never mind the collateral damage.

Gov. Nikki Haley: State can't afford its promises to its employees

There's a dodge that's familiar to career educators and other state employees.

In fat years, lawmakers love to warn that this is no time to raise public employee salaries, because doing so would force them to raise taxes, and raising taxes would surely bring a happy economy to an apocalyptic end.

And in lean years -- and worse, after all the fat's been cut from the budget, and a lot of the muscle too, and the blade is shaving the bone -- lawmakers love to warn that this is no time to raise public employee salaries, because doing so would doom poor South Carolina's economy to stagnation and prolong its arid, torturous march to recovery.

At least in the latter cases, responsible lawmakers have, in time gone by, dangled this promise to those suffering the loss of earning and buying power: Your wages may not increase, but we haven't forgotten your valuable service to the people of South Carolina; we'll continue to strengthen your health care benefits and your retirement.

That worked through the recessions of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Yea, though salaries moved like molasses uphill in those times, employee benefits were preserved. Ask any teacher will a long memory and she'll confirm it.

The thinness of that promise became apparent in the early 2000s, when finance committee chairs huffed and puffed that they could no longer protect health insurance coverages. Public employees saw their out-of-pocket expenses rise at the same time their coverage shrank. Few new features were added -- the chiropractors' lobby was successful at persuading legislators to cover more visits to the chiropractor, for example -- but deductibles, co-payments and prescription costs rose and rose.

But this week, the ever-thinner promises of old were rent to shreds as our new governor announced her desire to cut health care coverage for public employees, AND to cut retirement benefits for public employees, ON TOP OF leaving public employees with years-stagnant wages AND the threat of more job cuts.

The root cause of South Carolina's budget woes, it would appear, are the Cadillac-quality benefits packages doled out to public employees at taxpayer expense.

Gov. Nikki Haley says she plans to propose cutting state employees' health care and retirement benefits as a way to start addressing what she says is $14 billion in unfunded retirement benefits. She made the announcement during a town hall meeting Thursday night in Lexington.

"We've got retirees that we know have been promised things and so we always want to make sure that we protect them as best as we can. But current government employees, we're going to have to look at what we can do," she said.

Note again the governor's careful consideration of the state's obligation to its retirees, and the lack of certainty that South Carolina will honor that obligation: "We've got retirees that we know have been promised things and so we always want to make sure that we protect them as best as we can."

For generations, men and women have lived with a modicum of faith that the promises made to their by their government would be kept. Public employees, especially, have held tightly that faith in the leanest of times because they, too, had children to raise and they, too, had dreams that their children would make it to college, make it to a good career, make it out of working poverty.

In those times, leaders of both parties understood their part of that faith, and moved heaven and earth to honor it.

Not so anymore. This is the Haley era.

Who knew Sen. Jim DeMint had a background in education?

Actually, he doesn't. Senator DeMint's background is in market research, and its applications in politics. In fact, he entered politics as an early campaign consultant to former U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis of Greenville, when moderate conservatism was still considered mainstream politics.

But things change; the moderate Inglis was pushed aside in a contentious primary last year with a little aid from his old friend, and the Cato Institute now declares DeMint an expert on education issues.

To wit, DeMint is to thank for South Carolina's latest initiative to establish private school vouchers -- or, to use the vernacular of those who would mesmerize voters: "choice" and "education tax credits."

But the pea is still under the far-right shell: Any attempt to divert public dollars from public education and use them to pay for private schooling is a voucher, AND it's illegal under Article XI, Section 4 of South Carolina's current Constitution.

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.)

Check it out for yourself.

421 Charleston school jobs in jeopardy, but lawmakers consider vouchers

Where's the logic?

Lawmakers say there's not enough money in the budget to keep all of South Carolina's educators on the job -- including the 421 school employees in Charleston, waiting to hear if their jobs will be cut -- yet they're considering, again, a foolish plan to divert public funds from public schools to pay for private school vouchers.

The news from Charleston:

The school board decided last week not to issue contracts to four groups of educators until it determines the classroom positions that it has available. Those affected include first-year teachers, retired teachers, those considered Visiting International Faculty, and those who haven't taught in Charleston for the entire school year. They did exempt some teachers in those groups, such as those working in rural areas or hard-to-fill positions, such as math, science, foreign language or special education.

"We did this as a way of preserving our options," said school board Chairman Chris Fraser.

School leaders are facing a projected $28 million shortfall for next school year, and they've made an estimated $11 million in cuts, such as out- sourcing custodial services, eliminating administrative staff, and reducing school-based positions, such as media specialists, teaching assistants, secretaries, and clerks.

The 421 educators affected by the decision have less contract rights than the rest of the teaching corps, so this move gives the district more flexibility for placing staff should it need to reduce its teaching force because of budget cuts, Fraser said.

And the wisdom of South Carolina's electeds:

South Carolina legislators are again considering a bill to help parents send their children to private schools.

...
The measure would allow parents to claim a tax credit for paying private school tuition. Parents who homeschool their children could take a tax credit for the cost of education materials.

Initially, parents who already send their children to private school could not claim a credit.

Poor parents who can't afford to pay tuition upfront could seek a scholarship. The business or person donating money toward those scholarships could get a tax credit.

Various versions of the idea have died repeatedly since 2004.

What is it that Einstein supposedly said about defining insanity?

Here's the logic: If the goal of lawmakers is to strangle public education to the point that it could not possibly meet the needs of South Carolina's schoolchildren, then the proposal under consideration by South Carolina lawmakers makes perfect sense. In such a world, parents would, sooner or later, completely lose faith in public education and vacate public schools; those with means to pay for private schools (and the benefit of state subsidy, to boot!) would do so, leaving poorer families without any viable options to help their children escape poverty.

What of those poorer children, then? Well, South Carolina has a history of providing opportunities of a different sort for them.