Friday, June 17, 2011

Ravitch: Don't let schools become "profit centers"

Education researcher Diane Ravitch told members of the Georgia School Boards Association this morning, “Stand up for public education. Don’t let private entrepreneurs divide your community and turn your schools into profit centers. Don’t stand by and let politicians tear down a public institution that has been the foundation of our democracy for 150 years.”

Blogger Maureen Downey, writing for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, covered the association's annual meeting in Savannah, and she reports that Ravitch "lambasted most of the reforms du jour in education today, merit pay, value-added teacher evaluations, charter schools, vouchers and testing."

She cautioned the 600 attendees to look critically at reforms being led by the high tech sector and hedge fund managers “who don’t much about public schools. They don’t much about education and, sometimes, I think they don’t know much about children.”

The competitive model that they are pushing will not work because the goal of education is not to produce winners and losers, Ravitch said, but to give “every child our best effort.”

Reminding the audience that 93 percent of Georgia’s students attend public schools, Ravitch said, “We must improve those public schools. We must not pretend those children don’t exist while we are creating more choices for 2 to 3 percent of them.”

Author of “The Death and Life of the Great American School System,” Ravitch cautioned school board members to think twice about proposals and reforms that might inflict harm, saying, “We adults can take a few wrong turns and survive it, but children shouldn’t suffer because of our mistakes.”

This frenzy to tear down schools and start over does not work for children who don’t thrive in upheaval and chaos, but who need stability, she said. And the destruction of our current education system is built on lies, including that American education has failed, that it was far better 50 years ago. One of the nation’s premier education historians, Ravitch said, “Take it from me. They literally don’t know what they are talking about.”

The education system 50 years ago shortchanged children of color and ignored children with disabilities. While the corporate reformers decry the rise in education costs, Ravitch said they overlook the large increases due to federal laws requiring schools to educate all children, including the profoundly disabled. Congress mandated special education, she said, but has never fully paid for it.

Ravitch also disagreed with complaints that American children have shown no academic progress in that time, noting that there has been a slow and steady rise. She cited the gains made by black students in the 1970s and 1980s. She cited the rise in math performance on NAEP — a federal test considered the gold standard — since 1992.

This is a smart lady. If you haven't read her book, it comes highly recommended and gives a great history lesson on the forces that have amassed against public schools in the last couple of generations, including the self-styled philanthropic foundations and corporate interests who profit from public education.

Downey added a brief digest of highlights from Ravitch's remarks:

–America will never improve schools by running down or running off teachers. Citing the loss of 50 percent of teachers in their first five years, she said getting rid of teachers is clearly not the answer.

–She fears that a dozen years of multiple choice testing as a result of No Child Left Behind will squeeze every ounce of creativity, imagination and innovation from children’s brains.

– She said merit pay has been tried again and again since the 1920s. “This is an idea that never succeeds and never dies,” she said. Ravitch referenced the Vanderbilt study last year that found merit pay did not change student outcomes. She cited the view of business guru William Edwards Deming that merit pay destroys teamwork and collaboration and makes people only think of what is best for them rather than what is best for the organization.

–She also said there is no evidence that closing schools and starting fresh does anything but undermine communities and destroy social networks, citing Arne Duncan’s school closure regimen in Chicago. “It didn’t help in Chicago,” she said.

–The goal of education should not be higher test scores, but a balanced and full education that includes arts, music, science social studies, geography and health, she said.

–To improve education outcomes, make sure every young woman has prenatal care and expand early childhood education. The No. 1 goal of the nation’s education vision in 1990 was that every child arrive in school ready to learn. That goal remains unmet, Ravitch said.

–“It is incomprehensible that the richest country in the world cannot afford a found education for its children,” she said.

–When the United States recently ranked in the middle of international rankings, President Obama said it was our “Sputnik moment.”

Noting she was around for the original Sputnik moment, Ravitch said American students ranked dead last in the first international comparison in 1964. Yet, that generation went on to create a dynamic business environment, the high tech industry and the world’s most respected higher education system. “How can a generation that ranked in the bottom quartile produce those amazing achievements? she asked.

–She also noted that the media greeted the original Sputnik moment with complaints that schools were to blame, that the Soviets had put us to shame and left us in their academic dust. “I would like to point out that they are gone and we are still here,” she said of the Soviet Union.

–As for the current rankings that put Finland in the top slot, Ravitch said, “If those international tests predicted the future, we should be worried now about Finland dominating the world. We will be forced sit in saunas whether we want to or not.”

Her point was that these tests may not tell the whole story or predict much of anything in terms of a country’s economic future.

Oops: Private company shreds Florence 1 student records

Here's another illustration of what happens when we turn basic school functions over to private companies in the name of saving money.

CINTAS, Florence School District 1’s document reduction service provider, inadvertently shredded the records of some 300 students at South Florence High School. The records belonged to rising ninth-graders, the students who will be transitioning from Southside Middle to South Florence High School in the fall, according to a press release issued by the district Thursday afternoon.

Florence 1 officials have telephoned parents of the rising South Florence freshmen and notified them that the records of the students are being retrieved through the school district’s web-based student information system known as PowerSchool, according to the release. Officials also said they intend to work with the local S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control office over the summer to retrieve birth certificates and immunization records of the students affected.

Since when have we been turning over birth certificates and immunization records to private companies? Does this not violate the public trust? Is there no law prohibiting the sharing of personal information of this sort with corporate entities?

Furthermore, how does a uniform and laundry company get into the document-shredding business? Unless there are two corporate entities using the same strange name, CINTAS is an Ohio-based company -- again an out-of-state business interest profiting from South Carolina's public education system -- involved in the "design and manufacturing of corporate identity uniform programs, entrance mats, restroom supplies, promotional products, first aid and safety products, fire protection services and document management services."

A company that makes workshirts, doormats and restroom supplies shredded the permanent records of Florence County eighth-graders. So much for the protection of personal information, and so much for "permanent" records.

“Our goal is to ensure parents that we will retrieve the student data as quickly as we can,” interim superintendent Dr. Allie E. Brooks Jr. said in the release. “We are also fortunate to have access to PowerSchool, which maintains the majority of the information which was contained in the permanent records.”

Brooks said the district will implement a plan of action with data reduction systems in the future to ensure the inadvertent shredding of documents won’t occur again.

Perhaps the first paragraph of that plan should read:
Florence School District 1 will adopt policies to ensure that documents containing the personal information of students, their parents and guardians, including but not restricted to birth certificates and immunization records, will be handled by Florence School District 1 personnel only, on the premises of Florence School District 1 property only, under such circumstances that will guarantee the safe handling, management and security of these documents and the information they contain. Under no circumstances will individuals not directly employed by Florence School District 1 be authorized or allowed to view or manage such documents.

See how easy that is?

Parents: Do you know if your school district hires private companies to maintain your student's permanent records? How does it make you feel to wonder about that?

Dorchester 2 privatizes bus fleet, 200 drivers fired

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The state's flawed contracting process? What flaws?

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

Something about this doesn't compute.

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

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

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

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

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

School job cuts raise unemployment rate; Haley promotes Boeing

There's been no word from Governor Nikki Haley's office yet on South Carolina's new unemployment rate, which has now crept back into double digits. The Post & Courier of Charleston reports that the governor and other of the state's leading lights are in that area today to participate in a Congressional hearing on the Boeing controversy. Various Congressmen are convening a hearing on the National Labor Relations Board complaint against the corporate giant for moving union jobs to a right-to-work-for-less state.

But the Post & Courier did report on the jobless rate in today's edition.

The jobless figure rose to 10 percent for May from 9.8 percent in April, the state Department of Employment and Workforce said today.

Statewide, job decreases were reported in three sectors: education and health services; government; and professional and business services.

Does the decrease in education jobs mean that there are fewer children in South Carolina in need of education? Not according to the 2010 census, which said that South Carolina has increased in population so much that we deserve another whole Congressional district. So why is there such a drop in education jobs?

(Crickets.)

I can tell you what the General Assembly is doing about it:

Lawmakers struck an agreement Thursday on a $6 billion spending plan for the state, including cutting by a quarter the unemployment tax bills paid by businesses. The tax cut for employers comes at the expense of public schools.
...
Among the final issues to resolve was how to use $210 million that state economists added to the state's projected revenues last month.

The Senate split the money almost evenly between K-12 education and tax relief for businesses. Those businesses are having to pay higher unemployment insurance rates to repay nearly $1 billion in federal loans that the state was forced to take out in order to continue to pay unemployment benefits during the recession.

The House set aside $146 million for businesses and $56 million for schools, arguing that cutting the employer cost of unemployment insurance might encourage companies to hire more quickly.

Gov. Nikki Haley weighed in, too, Wednesday, threatening to veto the Senate's version of the budget, which gave more money to K-12 education than the House did. Haley said any money added to the state's projected revenues, after the House finished its budget plan in March, should go to cut taxes, pay off state debt or be returned to taxpayers.

Haley said Thursday that while education is a core function of government, the state's K-12 budget should grow no faster than the rates of inflation plus student growth.
...
Business leaders were happy with the choice.

As well they should be; those who need the least aid from state government got the most, and those who need the most aid got the least. Translate that into Latin, and it sounds like South Carolina's state motto: Dum spiro spero.

Here's a bold idea for a passionate young lawmaker to propose on behalf of South Carolina's children: Lower the state's minimum voting age to nine. Then let's watch how the education budget in South Carolina starts to gain a little traction among legislative priorities.

Jim Davenport of the Associated Press offers a little more detail to the picture.

For weeks, the biggest issue in the spending plan had been $210 million in unexpected taxpayer collections.

The Senate version of the bill used $105 million to increase public school spending and $100 million on the business tax break.

The $105 million would have raised state per-student spending to $1,959 from the current $1,617. It's still well short of the $2,720 a state school funding formula says is required and it raised per-student spending to roughly where it was in 2000.

Imagine that. By adopting the Senate's proposal, South Carolina's legislature would have raised the state's per-pupil expenditure back the level it was in the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency.

But, no.

Instead, schools will get $56 million, raising the per-student spending to $1,880.

The tax break came after businesses complained about soaring unemployment tax rates needed to cover nearly $1 billion in federal loans. The loans were needed after the state's unemployment trust fund went broke in 2009, depleted by years of too-low tax collections that left it unprepared for the recession's layoffs and firings.

To cover the loans, the Republican-controlled Legislature approved what's regarded as one of the biggest business tax increases on record and insisted that employers with the records of firing people pay more.

The House put $146 million into that tax break, knocking about 25 percent off unemployment tax bills for companies with firing records.

"I think that will help our businesses around the state," said Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, R-Gaffney.

As for helping South Carolina's children get a 1990s-era quality of education, it'll have to wait another year.

And we wonder why South Carolina continues to lag decades behind the rest of the nation.

Cheraw Primary promotes summer reading among youngsters

What a great idea. Is it possible to replicate this program for all of South Carolina's first- and second-graders? The Cheraw Chronicle explains:

Cheraw Primary participated in the Summer Reading Project sponsored by the South Carolina Department of Education May 23-24. As part of the program, all students in first and second grade were able to choose twelve books from a selection of over sixty titles of children’s literature to read.

Classrooms were set up similar to a book store where students could browse and select the books they wished to read. These books will become part of their home libraries.

Over the course of the summer, the children will read the books provided by the project, and with the help of parents, record their total reading times on calendars and discuss the books with each other.

When school begins in the fall, there will be a special program at the school to discuss the positive experiences related to the project, and to talk about research relating to children and reading.

Cheraw Primary School is excited the program which helps to maintain and improve reading skills in students, when given access to books throughout the summer.

Is education becoming a fall-back occupation? If so, why?

Ask 100 men and women with at least 25 years of classroom experience under their belt when they decided to become a teacher, and the answers you'll get from more than 90 of them will be a variation on this theme: I knew when I was six/seven/eight/nine years old, in the second/third/fourth/fifth grade, that I wanted to be a teacher just like Miss Hill/Mr. Jones/my favorite teacher. In the cases of at least 10 of them, you'll probably hear that their parents or grandparents were teachers, and they wanted to follow in family footsteps.

It's when the seeds are planted so deeply, so early, that career educators are made. Knowing from an early age that one wants to make a difference in the lives of children, just as a teacher made a difference in one's own life, tends to guide one toward good decisions and away from bad ones.

But, as they say, something changed between once-upon-a-time and nowadays. Today, children in classrooms see how little respect is given to teachers. High school students, particularly, see the great economic disparity between the student parking lot and the faculty parking lot -- check it out for yourself sometime, as teenage students roll up in gleaming new SUVs and luxury sedans, and teachers arrive in their beaters -- and understand instantly that teaching isn't a lucrative career option. And after watching their teachers weighed down with greater workloads, larger class sizes, more command-and-control from district and state administrators, more federal regulation of the classroom and shrinking salaries and benefits -- not to mention the significant hateful rhetoric pointed at teachers from media -- a generation of potential Miss Brookses have found other professional paths to pursue.

Which leaves tremendous gaps in the profession. Veteran educators approach retirement eligibility and either transition to returning-retirees or leave the field altogether. Those mid-career educators who remain in the classroom -- too many years in the system to give up on, not enough yet to earn the freedom to make other choices -- feel the weight shifted to their shoulders.

Gaps at the starting gate, as fewer young men and women seek to enter the profession as a career, are being filled by resume-builders through programs like Teach for America -- or, as I call it, Teach for A While. These programs offer Ivy-League graduates something akin to a Peace Corps experience: Take five weeks of "You Too Can Teach" training and then a teaching assignment in a low-rent community for two years before joining your uncle's firm or brokerage -- or, as in the case of Michelle Rhee and others like her, parlay that experience into a high-paying administration job.

But between the lifers and the not-on-your-lifers is another huge gap. WLTX of Columbia aired a report this week describing a local program that seeks to fill this one.

Ever thought of changing your career? The South Carolina Department of Education is training non-traditional teachers.

It's part of what's known as the PACE Program, and it's changing the lives of new teachers and students.

Adam Speight wanted to make a career change. "I worked in marketing and add agencies for a couple years," he explained.

Speight is participating in PACE, which lasts three years and allows professionals to transition from the workplace to the classroom. Training sessions are filled with former marine biologists, lawyers, and engineers.

"You realize you are making a better future," Speight said. "I know it sounds cheesy but it's true."

He said moving out of the office and into the classroom is a easier than you think.

"You know what to emphasize and what to downplay," he said. "What's important, what's not."

While working in advertising Speight taught a class at USC.

"I had a student tell me they learned more from my class than they did in all their four years," he said.

State Education Superintendent Mick Zais said these new teachers bring a diversity of experience and background to the classroom.

"These folks have the ability to change childrens lives and I admire their decision," Zais said.

Speight is now at Chapin High School teaching entrepreneurship and marketing.

"It gives you credibility with the students because they know that you lived the material," Speight said.

Pace educators say they can put material more in context and bring the subject alive.

"Students are telling me how much I'm going to like reading their papers and they are really proud of the work they do, and work they thought they couldn't do," he said. "That's nice, that's a good feeling.

Professionals from other fields who transition into the classroom certainly bring maturity and probably a depth of knowledge about particular topics. But do you think we'll ever rebuild a culture that respects educators and their profession so much that little children will want to become teachers from the start, and parents will encourage their children to consider teaching as a career? Or are we locked into a culture that regards teaching as a second career or just a fallback position?

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Rainey: Haley "most corrupt person to occupy the Mansion"

The immediate past chairman of South Carolina's Board of Economic Advisors, John Rainey, issued a scathing indictment of Governor Nikki Haley to a national magazine this week, declaring that Haley is "the most corrupt person to occupy the governor’s mansion since Reconstruction."

Rainey is no lightweight; he is "a longtime Republican fundraiser and power broker who chaired the state’s Board of Economic Advisers for eight years," writes Corey Hutchins in the June 15 edition of The Nation, in a blistering article titled "Nikki Haley's Pay-to-Play Politics."

A 69-year-old attorney, Rainey is an aristocratic iconoclast who never bought the Haley myth. “I do not know of any person who ran for governor in my lifetime with as many charges against him or her as she has had that went unanswered,” he told me on a recent afternoon at his sprawling horse farm outside the small town of Camden. “The Democrats got Alvin Greene; we got Nikki Haley. Because nobody bothered to check these guys out.”

Hutchins's report examines the balance between Haley, the rising star in national party politics, and what Hutchins calls "a series of land mines -- IRS disputes, questionable business deals and appointments, multiple adultery allegations -- any one of which threatens to blow up her political career."

Haley's profile in The Nation isn't the first to examine her, but it may be the most cutting to date. Hutchens seems to leave no scandal unturned. He begins with a general overview of alleged cronyism:

When Haley took office in January, her backbencher status gave her no support structure in state government. Since then she’s appointed a surprising number of cronies and loyalists to bureaucratic functions in order to construct such a network. Many state boards have staggered terms to prevent unilateral decimation of institutional knowledge, but because former Governor Mark Sanford left so many appointees in place when their terms expired, there was a glut of personnel for Haley to dispense with as she pleased. At an early stage in the bloodbath, the capital city daily newspaper, the State, pointed out that of the fifty-nine she had already replaced, twenty-six were donors to her campaign.

Such wholesale housecleaning was not only sharply at variance with what the last GOP governor had done when taking over from a member of the same party; it also reeked of the kind of favor trading Haley had run against on the stump.

And he gets quickly to the decision to oust Darla Moore from the USC Board of Trustees, and the way it was done.

In March, without announcing it, Haley quietly excised the most generous benefactor of the University of South Carolina, billionaire financier and philanthropist Darla Moore, from the school’s board of trustees, replacing her with a campaign contributor and little-known lawyer from Haley’s district. When the alternative weekly Free Times broke the news of the move -- which led to student protests and a broader public backlash -- Haley was deceptive about her reasons for having made the change.

Haley’s office initially said she had wanted a “fresh set of eyes” on the board; Haley later told Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker that she’d ousted Moore—who’d given $70 million to the university whose business school bears her name—for not returning Haley’s phone calls and postponing a meeting. E-mails and correspondence from Haley’s office, later made public, revealed, however, that Haley had chosen Moore’s replacement a month before trying to meet with her.

Hutchens notes that Haley's choice of Chad Waldorf to succeed Rainey as chairman of the state Board of Economic Advisors carries its own hint of backroom dealing:

To chair the state’s revenue-projecting Board of Economic Advisors -- one of the highest positions in state government that doesn’t require Senate confirmation -- Haley appointed Chad Waldorf, co-founder of a barbecue chain called Sticky Fingers. Waldorf also happens to be co-founder of a group that paid for a $400,000 pro-Haley ad buy during her gubernatorial primary campaign; the ads were pulled off the air by a judge who said the group appeared to have improperly coordinated with her campaign.

Meanwhile, after Haley lifted a hiring freeze set by Sanford, the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism created a job for the wife of Haley’s chief of staff, Tim Pearson. Pearson, who is being paid $125,000 -- $27,000 more than the man who held the post in Sanford’s office -- is a former Sanford aide who managed Haley’s campaign.

And in case anyone was wondering about the passion that Haley has shown in defending Boeing Corporation against a complaint by the National Labor Relations Board, Hutchens connects some dots:

Haley has ended up on Think Progress’s list of pay-to-play governors who solicited money to fund inaugural parties from corporations with vested state interests. One of them was Boeing, which last year moved an expansion from unionized Washington State to South Carolina, a right-to-work state, which earned the airline manufacturer a lawsuit (still pending) from the National Labor Relations Board. Haley has lately made national news by asking the GOP presidential candidates to stick up for Boeing.

And Hutchens uncovers a new issue that is fraught with ethical questions, this one around Haley's hiring of 32-year-old Christian Soura of Pennsylvania to help develop the "Department of Administration" she is pushing the legislature to establish. Soura is paid only one dollar year by the Haley administration, but there's a twist:

A bill currently moving through the state legislature would make the department a cabinet agency under the governor, allowing a governor-appointed director to oversee much of state administration.
...
While the dollar-a-year arrangement gives Soura access to state government, he’ll draw his real compensation from a newly created think tank, the South Carolina Center for Transforming Government, which doesn’t have to disclose its funding.

The murky nature of Soura’s presence has caused headaches for the new state treasurer, Republican Curtis Loftis. Loftis accuses Soura of undermining his authority, violating established protocols and circumventing the treasurer’s office by contacting services that determine the state’s credit rating behind Loftis’s back. “We don’t have any knowledge of who’s paying him or what his motives are,” a frustrated Loftis said recently. “We have an unknown dollar-a-year man.”

The article reviews the allegations made by two men who claimed to have had inappropriate relationships with Haley during her legislative career, and the questions swirling around her previous employment as a fundraiser for the Lexington Regional Medical Center, all of which can be read here for yourself.

But what seems to capture Hutchens's, and his sources', attention is Haley's political intentions. "Haley seems to be angling for a spot on a national ticket," he writes. At age 39, he notes, "She is already penning her memoir."

“Every governor we’ve had since Carroll Campbell has had national aspirations, but with her it’s more naked and obvious,” says Brad Warthen, a Columbia advertising man who until 2009 was the longtime editorial page editor of the State. Warthen endorsed Haley in two legislative elections and chronicled her rise beginning about seven years ago. In that time, he says, she has morphed from a naïve newcomer, to a politician he thought could become a good force in the legislature, to something approaching megalomania.

“I think she’s had her head turned by discovering where demagoguery will get you,” Warthen told me. “I don’t think that’s totally who she was before. I think she has developed in this direction. It’s a B.F. Skinner behavioral reinforcement thing; she has been rewarded and rewarded and rewarded. This has worked for her. And she continues to charm the national media. Because you know what? They don’t care. It’s just a story.”

But the story that’s been told nationally has a different tint in Dixie, one that belies any claim that white voters in South Carolina, which is nearly one-third black, have cast aside hang-ups over race by electing Haley. During her campaign, she embraced the most conservative ideas right down the line: laissez-faire capitalism, hostility to social programs and labor unions, cutting taxes, starving government.

“Nikki Haley could have been perceived as a black person in South Carolina because of her skin color and her eyes and so on, but she’s gone out of her way to say indirectly, ‘I’m not black, I’m white. I dress white, I talk white, I have white friends, I have white ideology,’” says John Crangle, a retired lawyer and political science professor who has run the state chapter of Common Cause for twenty-five years. “The subtext of everything she says is that we need to do less for black people in South Carolina, and that appeals to your traditional white Southerners -- the same people who voted for Nixon and the same people who are the base of the Republican Party now. But it also appeals to all these retirees that come in because they don’t want to pay taxes.” In the Palmetto State, it seems, an antigovernment stance that by default is anti-black still plays well at the polls -- especially when peddled by a minority politician.

Undergirding the trajectory of Haley's rise, Hutchens seems to suggest, is an overweening sense of hubris, a mixture of pride and arrogance that has come from the positive reinforcement Warthen mentioned and that seems to presage nothing but success in her future, at least in her own mind.

Hutchens concludes:

In late April, at a stop in Florence, during a series of speeches Haley was giving to commemorate her first 100 days, she told the small crowd, “There really are no mistakes we have made.” It was an astonishing claim, given the nearly daily reports of infidelity, dishonesty, conservative cronyism and pay-to-play politics. But the people of South Carolina are beginning to realize they’ve been duped. The question is whether the rest of the nation will get that same privilege.

What Constitution did Nikki Haley swear to uphold?

Why does South Carolina's present governor not support the public education system established in the South Carolina Constitution, the very Constitution she swore to protect and defend in her oath of office? Since taking her office in January, she has missed no opportunity to undermine, dismiss and promote alternatives to the system that serves more than 90 percent of South Carolina's school-age children.

And today's newspapers bring word that as lawmakers debate how to divide up a small windfall in unanticipated tax revenues, Haley has issued a veto threat if the legislature spends that money on our public schools. She demands instead that these funds be used, at best, to pay down state debt or otherwise to be refunded to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts.

It is, to put it generously, difficult to understand why a governor so despises the hundreds of thousands of children who attend public schools that she would withhold state funds from them, especially when the vast majority of lawmakers are willing to invest of the futures of those children.

And this is not a single veto threat, but a blanket veto threat in all future instances when the Board of Economic Advisors revises upward its revenue projections and additional funds become available.

Haley also said that, in the future, anytime a three-member panel of state economists increases its estimates of how much money the state will bring in, as it did last month, that money should go for tax cuts, rebates or to pay off state debt.

That position is certain to endear Haley to her Tea Party supporters, who say they are taxed enough already.

But it will upset others who say that, after cutting billions from the state’s general fund during the just-ended Great Recession, recovering state revenues should be used to restore services that were cut or can justify more support.

At present, the BEA calculates that the state has an additional $210 million above the earlier estimates that lawmakers used to draft their initial budget.

The Senate added $105 million for K-12 funding and $100 million to help businesses pay off nearly $1 billion in federal loans that the state took out to be able to continue paying jobless benefits after the state’s unemployment fund went bust. Some businesses saw their unemployment insurance bills increase six-fold after lawmakers voted to raise rates to repay the federal loans.

The House earmarked $146 million for business tax relief and added $55 million to K-12 funding. House members argued providing businesses more tax relief might encourage them to hire more employees.

Haley made it clear she does not like the Senate spending plan.

“If you’re not giving it in tax relief, if you’re not giving it to pay down the debt, you send it back to the taxpayers – that’s where it belongs,” Haley said.

If we follow that philosophy to its ultimate end, it means that once the state debt is entirely paid off, then the state government would cease to exist, having been gradually and completely de-funded.

It seems to suggest that Haley has a yet-undisclosed version of the South Carolina Constitution that tells her which state obligations and institutions are "core functions" and which are not. The version available to the public clearly establishes a system of free public schools, meant to be accessible by all of South Carolina's children, and this is the one to which she swore an oath to uphold in January.

By employing her line-item veto, Haley could make it much more difficult for lawmakers to increase state spending, deleting added money.

“From now, going forward, whenever money falls from that money tree – and it does every year – it’s not ‘Where do we spend it and how do we spend it?’ It’s ’Give it back to the taxpayer,’ ” she said.

Haley said she will target her budget vetoes at “anything that’s not that core function of government,” including ETV public television and radio, and the state Arts Commission. Asked if her target list of non-core functions included K-12 education, Haley responded only that the House found a way to balance its budget proposal without the additional money.

Are there, in fact, two versions of our state Constitution -- one for the governor, and one for the people?

Thankfully, someone else is asking questions about Haley's motives and veto threats.

But Senate Minority Leader John Land, D-Clarendon, said the state is not meeting its obligations for education and health care, having cut its budget from $7.3 billion in 2008 to $5.1 billion for the fiscal year that ends June 30.

Land recited a list of tax breaks approved by the state in the last decade, including the $100 million in unemployment tax relief to businesses, property tax relief, and business and personal income tax cuts. House lawmakers estimate they have cut $20 billion in taxes since Republicans took control of that body in 1995.

“You have too many needs that are going unmet,” Land said. “South Carolina has been very, very good as far as giving back to the taxpayer.”

All of which is further evidence that elections have consequences.

Should Bojangles assume government functions?

I'm imagining walking into a South Carolina classroom in the near future and seeing corporate logos on the doorways, windows and walls, the same way they festoon NASCAR racers. For example, "Today's lesson is brought to you by Fruit Roll-Ups." Or "Just do your best on the test: Nike." How about: "Drop those heavy books and pick up a Kindle."

Sounds farfetched? We already have corporate sponsorship advertisements on soft drink machines in high school common areas, and billboards ringing our sports fields and arenas.

Do we wonder why? It's due, in largest part, to the fact that corporate sponsors give funds -- in exchange for the rights to advertise to children in schools -- that our lawmakers choose not to give.

Everyone has seen some version of a bumper sticker that has made the rounds for a generation; it says, roughly, Imagine the day when schools have all the resources they need, and the Pentagon holds a bake sale to buy more jets.

No one is advocating weakening national defense, but the sentiment is sound. At the state level, our government leaves such a deep hole in education funding year after year that district school boards can only say yes when corporate interests come offering slight donations, regardless of the conditions.

So educators should be grateful, I suppose, when concerned businesses like Bojangles raises $20,000 from its customers for state teachers and public education, as reported this week.

More than 100 company-and franchise-operated restaurants across the state held a two-week in-store fundraiser where customers purchased $1 and $5 paper apples to honor teachers who made a difference in their lives.

Wednesday, the money raised was donated to South Carolina Future Minds, a nonprofit organization dedicating to supporting education.

Camden Middle School's Lori Cooper, who happens to be the 2010-2011 Kershaw County was selected from the thousands of teachers honored online and in Bojangles' restaurants during May's Teacher Appreciation Month Celebration and awarded with a five-night Caribbean cruise.

"In times like this where budget considerations or budgets are tough its wonderful to see a company reaching out and appreciation teachers and showing us that what we do really matters," said Cooper.

I love a two-piece dark dinner with dirty rice and iced tea as much as the next one, but I suspect Bojangles got the better end of this deal. How far do we imagine that $20,000 will go in filling the hole left by lawmakers? Not far. But advertising time on broadcast networks is expensive, and I bet several newscasts have already mentioned, or plan to mention, the effort made by the chicken chain to help our children.

Certainly, I thank Bojangles for making the effort.

But in an ideal world, our lawmakers would meet students' resource needs in the state budget, and whatever our business community wanted to do would be like the icing atop a Bo-Berry biscuit, not the biscuit itself.

Griswold: Protecting retirement benefits requires vigilance, participation

As president emeritus of State Retirees Association, Sam Griswold is one of the most trusted voices in South Carolina on issues related to the South Carolina Retirement System. Sam has drafted a year-end summary of legislative activities from the 2011 session and new developments affecting retirees (and those who hope one day to retire), and it bears reprinting and sharing with others.

Sam writes:

The State Retirees Association has been closely following the Restructuring Bill (H3066) favored by Governor Haley and passed by the House.

As passed by the House, the bill moved the Employee Health Insurance Program (along with a number of other functions currently in the Budget and Control Board) into a new Department of Administration in the Governor's Cabinet. The Retirement Systems would stay with the remains of the Budget and Control Board. We were very concerned about the separation from the Retirement Systems and possible rumored privatization of the Health Insurance Program. We mobilized retirees to contact their Senators and attend the subcommittee of the Senate Judicial Committee which was reviewing the House bill. We wanted Health Insurance and Retirement to remain with the Budget and Control Board or, even better, buffered from the political system by putting both programs under a Board of Trustees. We failed to do that at the subcommittee.

Efforts were enhanced and when the subcommittee made their report to the full Judiciary Committee there was standing room only in the Committee room. Gray heads flowed out of the room and into the hall. Every Senator had been contacted by retirees from their district. The bill was amended in full Committee to retain both the Retirement Systems and the Health Insurance Program under the auspices of the Budget and Control Board. An amendment was proposed but defeated to create a process which would culminate in the creation of a new Employee Benefits Agency to oversee these functions.

Pursuing the bill to the Senate floor, we conferred with several senators regarding the whole business. An interesting coalition developed among generally younger Senators from both ends of the political spectrum -- Democrats and Tea Party affiliates. They put forth an amendment from the floor. The amendment, offered by Senators Sheheen and Massey, abolishes the Budget and Control Board over a two year period and provides for the creation of a separate and independent Employee Benefits Agency. The amendment also calls for the creation of a transition committee of stakeholders to advise the General Assembly on the actual structure of the new agency and further stipulates that during the transition period no changes can be made to retirement and insurance benefits without a unanimous vote of the Budget and Control Board. The amendment passed 43 to 0.

Most of the remainder of Budget and Control Board functions would be put into the new Department of Administration. We liked this version.

By now everybody has probably heard that the Senate adjourned without taking a final vote on the Restructuring Bill (H3066). Governor Haley heard about it and almost immediately signed an Executive Order directing the General Assembly to return to work the next week. The House leadership said they would, the Senate leadership said they would not. Senator McConnell then took the issue to the Supreme Court to determine if the Governor had the authority to call them back. The Court found against the Governor and they did not reconvene.

While final passage is not a certainty, we have come a long way since that cold winter day when so many of you attended the Senate Judiciary Committee and helped us keep health insurance out of the Department of Administration. You helped us stop a runaway train and in doing so helped to set the debate that culminated in the Senate's vote. You proved that we citizens can make a difference if we put forth the effort to participate.

The legislature is in session now for two weeks to deal with a limited agenda of vetoes, the budget, redistricting, and voter I.D. Governor Haley also wants them to deal with restructuring but it would take a 2/3 vote to put it on the agenda. It is unclear if they will have the votes to do that. If they do not take it up, it will be high on the agenda when they convene in January.

One final thing: The Budget and Control Board met on Tuesday, June 14 at 10:00 A.M. An agenda item created by State Treasurer Curtis Loftis proposed to increase the employer contribution into the Retirement Fund and thus maintain the appropriate contribution level to put amortization of the unfunded liability of the Fund into compliance with Government Accounting Standards. This motion failed for lack of a second.

Technically, payment of this contribution is not necessary until the fiscal year starting July 1, 2012. But Treasurer Loftis believes, and we concur, that taking this action now would help preserve the credit rating of the State. So here is another drama that we will have to follow.

The Board also did not address the issue of the assumed rate of return on investment of the Retirement Fund which means state law will automatically trigger a 1.7% cost of living adjustment for retirees effective July 1 and in the benefit check August 1. Hooray for that law that we got passed in 2008. Active participation works!

Our ultimate goal is a fiscally sound retirement and health insurance system that can meet the needs of government employees in our state for the foreseeable future.

But lots of money is involved here: $1.7 billion in annual expenditures for health insurance and a Retirement Fund in excess of $25 Billion. Whenever that much money is on the table, there are an infinite number of people who want a piece of that pie.

But it is OUR pie and worth fighting to keep. These are your dollars, put there for your benefit. They allow you to live the final years of your life in dignity and with the care you will need. We need to ensure that's how these dollars are spent and that they are not spent on the ambitions or greed of any politicians or outside entities. Help us keep it that way.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Lawmakers, listen to what matters to parents, educators

For those who may have missed this great column published last week by Philadelphia parent and writer Helen Gym at CNN.com, it's worth reading and forwarding to friends and colleagues. CNN describes Gym as "founder of Parents United for Public Education, which seeks classroom-centered investments in education budgets. She is a board member of the Philadelphia Public School Notebook, where she contributes online commentary. She helped found the Folk Arts-Cultural Treasures Charter School in Philadelphia Chinatown and was named the Philadelphia Inquirer Citizen of the Year for 2007 for education activism."

Gym's column reads,

Many of those who are driving education policy today are fixed on a certain set of numbers and measurements that we're told are the way to gauge a quality school. But as a parent, that's not really what matters to me about my daughter's education.

I can't tell you the number of her standardized test score from last year. I can't tell you the name of the curriculum program her school uses for math and reading. I don't know the pay scale of each of her teachers and whether that contributes to their malaise or enthusiasm in the classroom.

But here's what I can tell you about my daughter's education.

I can tell you the name of the history teacher who inspired her this year, the book that she loved and couldn't stop talking about and the topic of the reflective essay she labored to write and rewrite.

I can tell you which teachers gave homework assignments that made some of our family evenings perfectly miserable and the community service projects that had our whole family out cleaning the streets or readying a garden.

I can tell you what it felt like when the principal of a school shrugged her shoulders after I complained my daughter had been pushed down the stairs (we left that school) and what it felt like when the new principal stood outside greeting children by name as they entered every morning.

I can tell you that my mother cried when my youngest daughter's school choir sang "Arirang," a traditional Korean song, and that I loved every squeak and clank of the school orchestra.

I can tell you all of these things because as a parent, the true meaning of a quality school lies in a strong child- and family-centered educational mission that recognizes education as a "process of living" and school life as "real and vital" to our children and families, as American philosopher John Dewey wrote more than half a century ago.

This is what matters to me, but it's apparently not a priority when it comes to national debates about education reform. For many parents, the elements of what makes a quality school seem completely at odds with the national buzz about education reform:

-- While parents talk about programs rich in the arts, sciences and history, politicians talk about covering the basics through a one-size-fits-all curricula.

-- While we talk about building critical thinkers and creative problem-solvers for a complicated and dynamic world, they talk about hiring billion-dollar testing companies that infiltrate every aspect of teaching and learning, drilling the notion of knowledge down to a single test score.

-- While we talk about smaller class sizes to help students and teachers build nurturing relationships with one another, they talk about maximizing capacity and "creating efficiencies."

-- While we talk about building an experienced, stable and professional teaching force where teachers are prepared with a depth of knowledge in their subject areas and are committed to the profession, others talk about relying on a temporary teaching force or focusing on education managers.

-- While we talk about sustainable change based upon policies that have been proved to work, politicians and the private sector demand dramatic and disruptive changes that do little to significantly improve children's educational experiences.

And in this lies the critical difference between what many parents see as their hopes for a quality school system and the politicians and billionaire venture philanthropists dominating the education reform landscape. The latter have become so enamored with the structure and management of education that they've forgotten about the substance and practice of it.

So if this is what's meaningful to parents and families, how can policymakers help to support those goals?

They can start by listening to what parents around the country are saying we need our elected officials to do. Parents Across America, a national organization of parents, recently released its own blueprint for school reform.

Among the suggestions: Address the dramatic inequity in resources within and among school districts so we can maintain smaller class sizes and early childhood programs. Create strong, effective support for teachers, provide a rich well-rounded curriculum, and create multiple ways to evaluate teaching and learning. Make parental involvement meaningful and include roles for governance.

In her book "The Next American Revolution," Detroit activist Grace Lee Boggs decries a system of education that views children as passive receptacles of information that routinely passes as knowledge. Instead, she challenges us to give our children the kind of education that creates tomorrow's leaders by unleashing their creative energy "to heal the Earth and build durable economies and communities," "create a vibrant society" and a "democratic citizenry."

This is the direction our nation should be moving in, with elected leaders working alongside parents and community members to truly transform our schools.

Herald-Journal: "Public education is not some leftist tenet"

Hosanna.

Why does it take a potential electoral crisis -- six Upstate lawmakers appear to be in hot water for their votes against the most recent iteration of ye olde Sanford-Haley voucher scheme -- for one of the state's daily newspapers to make such a plain and clear defense of public education in South Carolina?

Similarly, why does it take such a crisis for one of our daily papers to openly defy the anti-public education group "South Carolinians for Responsible Government"?

SCRG, whose funding is believed to have roots in New York City and elsewhere (so says A, and B, and C, and D, and E, and F), has played The Woman Scorned since the legislature in May defeated the 2011 version of the same old voucher (or tuition tax-credit, take your pick) plan that Governor Mark Sanford first tried to sell us in 2003. It appears that some of Spartanburg's own lawmakers, including some who have, at one time or another, advocated some sort of school reform, and who may even have accepted campaign donations from pro-voucher sources, are among those who voted down the voucher plan. So these have been branded with their own numerific label -- the ominous "Spartanburg Six," like the "Fab Four" or the "Dirty Dozen" -- and the modern Red Shirts are out for revenge in the name of ideological purity.

It's this purity that the Herald-Journal's editors take up in yesterday's edition, writing, "It’s an odd assertion that a 'true conservative' is someone who wants the government to subsidize private education and that those who want to protect the public schools are somehow phony conservatives."

Indeed, the earliest South Carolinians who advocated for free public education for all of its children were conservatives -- and pro-business conservatives, at that.

But that’s the allegation six Spartanburg lawmakers are facing. They voted against the latest school voucher scheme and fell afoul of the groups established with out-of-state money to push this agenda in South Carolina. They also angered some tea party groups that are quick to believe any allegation of phony conservatism.

The truth is that the Spartanburg Six — Reps. Rita Allison, Steve Parker, Eddie Tallon, Mike Forrester, Derham Cole and Doug Brannon— did the right thing.

The measure billed as “school choice” would not have opened up new choices to parents or children. Its overall effect would have been to make private school more affordable for parents already able to make that choice. It offered such parents a tax credit to help pay the tuition. Poor parents, who can’t pay the tuition up front and don’t make enough money to take advantage of the tax credit, would have been left out in the cold. The bill offered them only the unlikely promise of privately financed scholarships.

The bill would not have improved any schools. It would have taken scarce resources away from the public schools, and it would have eroded the independence of private schools. Government money always comes with government strings. If this voucher bill had passed, it would have been only a matter of time before the General Assembly applied its accountability system and school report cards to private schools. Lawmakers would have declared that the state could not be subsidizing private schools without holding them accountable. Sooner or later, private schools would have to adopt the same tests and curriculum as public schools.

It’s time to get past the lie that parents who pay to send their children to private schools pay for education twice, or that they pay for schools they don’t use. The truth is that we do not pay taxes to support public schools solely to educate our own children. We support a public school system so that we can live in an educated society. We support a public school system because the alternative is an illiterate populace, rampant poverty and a hopeless future.

This has to be the most rational editorial published by the Herald-Journal in recent memory. And though it doesn't name SCRG, the editorial may as well be an open letter to that group and its out-of-state sponsors.

The Spartanburg Six voted to protect the public schools because they recognize that there is no reasonable alternative. It’s not because they don’t want parents to have choices, but they recognize that there will be no free-market utopia where tax credits allow all parents the choice between excellent private academies and the government is out of the education business. That plan simply isn’t realistic.

The Spartanburg Six are not slaves to the teachers’ unions or some liberal agenda. Public education is not some leftist tenet. It is not some new liberal invention. It’s the method this nation has used for generations to create the success we have had. That system isn’t perfect. Our schools are struggling in many ways, but voucher schemes like the one rejected by the Spartanburg Six would not help.

Read these words again: "Public education is not some leftist tenet. It is not some new liberal invention. It’s the method this nation has used for generations to create the success we have had."

What a statement, a declaration of the true good that went into establishing public education and the true good that has come -- and continues to come -- from public education. So I repeat my question: Why does it take a potential electoral crisis for one of the state's daily newspapers to make such a plain and clear defense of public education in South Carolina?

I hope that every district superintendent in South Carolina sends a printed copy of this editorial to every principal, teacher, secretary, custodian, cafeteria worker and bus driver in South Carolina with a thank-you note, as an illustration that there is a strain of common sense and decency that runs underground in our state, that the thankless work our public school personnel do is important, and that the occasional and slight scraps of support issued by a public voice ought to be held up and celebrated. Give the editors of the Herald-Journal some positive reinforcement for their declaration, whatever their motivation, and they may feel courageous enough to say it again, and again.

Contact the editors here (area code 864):

Horeth, Chris - Perspective, letters to the editor
chris.horeth@shj.com Phone: 562-7267
Parris, Lou - Stroller
lou.parris@shj.com Phone: 562-7204
Smith, Michael - Executive Editor
michael.smith@shj.com Phone: 562-7200

On the same day, in the same edition, the same editors invited Rep. Doug Brannon to publish a column explaining his choice to oppose the voucher scheme. It, too, bears reading, and Brannon deserves the same thanks for standing up for public schools.

If the legislature hadn't gone to such a Byzantine system for email communications, I'd post Brannon's email address to make it easier to thank him. Instead, call his legislative office and leave a message of thanks: (803) 212-6876.

Brannon writes in the Herald-Journal:

After significant thought on my part and the urging of many, I decided to write this to explain why I made the motion to table and voted to table H-3407 (the South Carolina Educational Opportunity Act).

There are four primary reasons the motion to table was made.

Reason 1: The cost of H-3407 in terms of reduced general fund revenue is impossible to calculate. Under the proposed bill, there are no limits put upon the amount an individual or corporation may contribute to a scholarship organization, no limit to the number of scholarship organizations that can be formed, and the bill allows for "stacking" of tax credits in such a way that multiple taxpayers could claim tax credits on the same student. Under this proposed bill, all taxpayers could have eliminated 95 percent of their state tax liability.

Reason 2: This bill offered choice to a limited group of taxpayers, and none of these groups was the intended benefactor. Under H-3407, a private school could choose to accept new students or scholarship students. There was no mandate that private schools join in this choice plan. Corporations or individuals could choose to make contributions in lieu of paying state taxes, and those families that can currently afford private school tuition could choose to take a tax credit against their state tax liability.

The average annual tuition at a private school in South Carolina is $8,720.36 Under H-3407, the total scholarship available to low-income families (the only families that qualify) during the first year is $2,878.00. Who will pay the difference? For families that do not qualify for a scholarship, a tax credit is available in the amount of up to $2,878.00. A tax credit does not result in a tax refund. A tax credit does not put money in your hand.

In South Carolina, there are 149 private schools. Of those, 119 are church related. If a private school that is affiliated with a church accepts a scholarship student, under this bill, that school may not ask that student for a profession of faith, to worship or to pray. We would be asking private church-related schools to create a separate secular curriculum. Do we really want separate but equal again?

Reason 3: H-3407 may not be constitutional. In Williams v. Illinois, the United States Supreme Court said that "a law nondiscriminatory on its face may be grossly discriminatory in its operation." As stated here, this bill did not offer choice to the low-income or those in failing schools — it offered choice to those who can afford it.

Reason 4: One person's choice should not come at the expense of others. Because this bill would have resulted in a significant reduction in general fund revenue, this so-called choice would have come at the expense of others in the form of less money for other services provided by the state of South Carolina.

I encourage each of you to read H-3407. Please see for yourself the flaws in this bill and why it was bad for South Carolina.

Local budgets bring "the stretchout" to classrooms

When the locations were South Carolina's textile mills, this strategy was called "the stretchout." After Congress enacted the first minimum wage law, mill owners cut their workforces, leaving fewer millhands to run more looms for longer hours. In the great 1995 documentary "The Uprising of '34," the sons of mill owners characterized it blithely as an "efficiency technique." But the millhands and their own children got the message: Keep workers hungry and they'll be grateful for their job, regardless of the conditions you dictate.

Mills aren't the only places where "the stretchout" has been applied in South Carolina; schools are another great place to see this fine "efficiency technique" in action. It is so common that it's axiomatic nowadays: When budgets get tight, lawmakers cut school funding, local districts cut worker rolls, and the remaining workers -- grateful to still have jobs -- take up the slack.

This week's newspapers have published such news but have done it with a rosy tint. The headline from Monday's Post & Courier in Charleston reads, "Charleston schools cut 70 jobs to help save money." Cutting jobs equals being helpful.

Writes Diette Courrégé in that edition,

Charleston County school leaders will lay off 70 people next school year to help balance their budget, and instructional coordinators and mechanics make up the majority of the jobs being eliminated.

The school district released the names of the positions that will be cut next year to save more than $2 million, and the biggest group of affected employees include 24 instructional coordinators who work as curriculum coaches for teachers and 19 mechanics, most of whom were dispatched to schools for maintenance work on an as-needed basis. A total of 22 types of positions were touched by the layoffs, and those included secretaries, technicians, an associate superintendent, and student support facilitators for career and technology education.

'Tis a strange beast, our state government: It demands certain kinds of paperwork, for instance, done traditionally by a school's secretarial staff members. When those staff members are cut, our state government does not reduce its demand for this paperwork, so the work must be accomplished by others who aren't secretarial staff members. That means the district's remaining teachers will do it -- perhaps in their spare time.

Likewise with other job titles being cut (or "reduced" or "eliminated by attrition," or "right-sized," or any of various other euphemisms that mean job cuts), the workload remains the same, but the number of people responsible for doing the work shrinks. Fewer people doing more work; that's the old "stretchout."

Gina Vasselli of the Sun-News in Myrtle Beach gave a similar report in her paper on the same day. The Horry County School Board gave its budget final reading on Monday evening, and Vasselli noted beforehand:

A budget that includes a net tax decrease for taxpayers is up for final reading at the Horry County School Board meeting tonight.
...
The $513 million budget is balanced and, in addition to the tax decrease, includes restoring a salary increase for qualified employees, no changes in the teacher-student ratio, and no layoffs or furloughs.

Some positions at the district have been cut, but are the result of a previous decision to fully enforce allocation formulas, which determine how many positions each school will have based on student population.

Translation: No layoffs or furloughs are included in the proposed budget for next year because positions were cut in this school year, but even those job cuts are good because they only "enforce allocation formulas." They sound completely painless. I wonder if those now-unemployed educators even had names?

The stretchout isn't just being implemented on the Grand Strand and in the Low Country. Check your own local school district budgets for the past two, three, five, seven years and you might find a good bit of stretching-out happening in your own backyard.

Yesterday, word came from the Spartanburg Herald-Journal that it's being applied in schools in the original mill country's old stomping grounds again. Spartanburg District 1 approved its budget on Monday, and it's a much healthier budget than last year's, assuming that the General Assembly passes hoped-for school funding. Reporter Lee Healy writes that it reflects work "to slowly rebuild what several years of recession budgeting has torn down."

Some savings come from cutting 25 full-time positions from the new budget, including 12 teachers. The staff reduction, achieved primarily through retirement and voluntary severances, will save the district about $721,000. [Superintendent Ron] Garner said the cuts will affect class size in some areas, bringing teacher-student ratios to do-able, but not ideal, levels.

“There's just no way to get around (increases in class size) when you cut that many positions,” Garner said. “We're still at a good level, but we do not want class size to get to a point that's unsustainable.”

See it: Cut worker rolls, maintain the demand for production, and leave the remaining workers -- grateful that they survived the cut this time -- to take up the slack.

Superintendent Garner said one thing that jumped out at me:

“I am encouraged that the base student cost is greater this year than it was last year, but I am prayerful that the base student cost will get above the mark that we were at in 2009-10, when we started this slide,” Garner said. “We're still way, way off the mark.”

For this superintendent -- and probably a great many others -- getting necessary results from lawmakers in Columbia is a matter for prayer.

It reminded me of the old Charlton Heston film, "The Ten Commandments," when Pharoah commanded Hebrew slaves to produce bricks without straw, partly as punishment and partly because old Pharoah didn't want to spend any more of the royal kitty on straw. The Hebrews turned to God for relief.

But Pharoah ran a dictatorship. South Carolina is, at least on paper, still a democracy in which citizens have the rights to choose their representatives, to speak out in protest when those representatives fail their constituents, and to petition government for redress of grievances. Isn't it? If so, perhaps we need to plan some public prayer vigils when we can have some good old-fashioned discussions about "the stretchout."

Shall we invest in children, or pay business to hire workers?

That's the choice being described in today's The State, as lawmakers get back to work on the $5.8 billion budget plan -- the plan that is supposed to become effective July 1.

The State explains:

The Senate budget would split money added by growth in the state's economy -- with $100 million paying for business tax relief and $105 million paying for K-12 education.

House members want $150 million in tax relief for businesses. Their insurance rates rose to start repaying almost $1 billion in federal loans that the state had to take out in order to continue paying unemployment benefits after the state's unemployment insurance fund went broke in 2008. For some companies, taxes increased by as much as 600 percent per employee, and companies have said the tax hike might cause them to delay hiring.

Debt from poor legislative choices -- or was it former Governor Mark Sanford's decisions that led to the depletion of the unemployment insurance fund? -- now leave the state's children in want, with lawmakers mulling over whether to give them half-loaf or a quarter-loaf.

It is as it has been for all of South Carolina's generations: Our decisionmakers see the needs but find all manner of competing interests to drain the treasury before getting to the question of giving every child access to a quality education.

Who wins? That's been the same for generations, too.

State Rep. Dan Cooper, R-Anderson, the House's top budget writer, says the debate over spending on education or tax relief is the biggest remaining issue. An agreement could be worked out this week, he added.