Thursday, February 9, 2012

What will lawmakers do to fill the time?

This year's session is scheduled to run through June 7, which means some tough decisions will have to be made now that a very important issue has been taken off the table. What will they do?

The S.C. Legislature will not require USC and Clemson to face off annually in football.

A House subcommittee Wednesday shot down the idea of requiring the teams to play each other every year, saying it is unnecessary government intervention.

“These matters should be handled by the universities and trustees,” said state Rep. Lester Branham, D-Florence, chairman of the subcommittee that voted 7-0 to reject the idea.

"Unnecessary government intervention" was the key to turning over control of university matters to university leaders. I wonder if that would work on legislation unnecessarily micromanaging the work of public schools?

State Rep. Nathan Ballentine, R-Lexington, introduced the proposal because of growing fear that recent expansions and realignments by the Southeastern and Atlantic Coast conferences could one day mean the two teams would not meet -- as they have done for the past 103 consecutive years. It is the second, oldest rivalry in college football history.

“This is important to the state,” Ballentine said during the meeting. “It is something the Palmetto State could be proud of, should be proud of.”

Both universities opposed the measure, saying scheduling is best left to the schools. Officials from both schools also said they cannot imagine a future scenario when they would not play.

Ballentine said he accepts the rejection of his proposal but stands ready to re-introduce it if needed.

“I still think there’s the possibility in the future that the game could be in jeopardy,” Ballentine said. “If that happens, I stand ready to help if the situation changes.”

He's ready, y'all.

Gaffney's Quincie Moore is named Cherokee superintendent

It's taken nearly two years, but Cherokee Board of Trustees have named a new superintendent. Quincie Moore, a Gaffney native who has built a career in education in Cherokee and Spartanburg counties and at Limestone College, was the unanimous choice after a four-hour executive session on Wednesday.

Moore, the assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction in Spartanburg District 2, was one of four finalists interviewed by the school board during the last two weeks. The board worked with the South Carolina School Boards Association to identify the best candidates for the district's top position from a stack of 32 applications.

Board Chairman Donnie Smith said the group selected Moore after an extensive search process that yielded an excellent pool of candidates.

“Due to the caliber of the candidates it was a hard decision, but we are proud to say that we feel that Dr. Moore is very qualified,” Smith said after the vote. “We're glad to have her on board.”

The terms of Moore's contract will be ironed out by the board's legal council, but members agreed to offer her a three-year contract at a salary of $125,000 per year with a 10 percent annuity and $750 per month automobile and gas allowance.

Moore is a 1982 graduate of Gaffney High School and went on to work as principal at Ewing Middle School and GHS before accepting her current job with District 2 five years ago. Her resume also includes experience as an adjunct professor of mathematics at Limestone College, assistant principal, teacher and coach.

In an interview Tuesday, Moore said she was glad to be given the opportunity to lead a school district that has been a part of both her personal and professional life.

“I can't think of any better place if you want to be the superintendent than to come back and be that person in your own home district,” Moore said.

Smith said it isn't immediately clear when Moore will begin her new job, but the board has previously expressed its desire to have a permanent superintendent in place by July 1.

Last month, the board appointed Associate Superintendent Carlotta Redish to serve as acting superintendent until a new leader is in place. She replaces former superintendent Ed Taylor, who was hired on an interim basis in fall 2010 but resigned effective Jan. 31.

Congratulations, Superintendent Moore.

PASS tests may be replaced with SBAC tests

Tests themselves aren't evil; they're tools that can be useful in diagnosing learning gaps and guiding the work of instructors. But that's not how our punitive command-and-control lawmakers have chosen to use them.

The reading and math tests South Carolina third- through 12th-graders take this spring likely won't exist in three years.

The state Board of Education signed off 10-3 Wednesday on a plan to adopt new tests for the 2014-15 school year that are being developed by the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium, a collection of educators, researchers, policymakers and community groups from states nationwide.

The new reading and math exams will replace what students know now as the Palmetto Assessment of State Standards, exit exam and end-of-course tests.

The state is making the change because it agreed in 2010 to adopt the Common Core Standards, which are new requirements for what students must learn at every grade in reading and math. The state's existing tests aren't aligned to the new requirements, which will be implemented in full by 2014-15, so the state had to figure out a new testing system. Students still would take existing tests for science and social studies unless the General Assembly changes that.

The Common Core Standards for reading and math have been benchmarked against the world's top-performing countries, so the goal in using them is to better prepare U.S. students to compete in a global economy. The new tests also will allow South Carolina students' scores to be compared with those in other states, which isn't possible with the state's existing tests.

Although the state board gave its go-ahead to move forward with the new tests, it's not a done deal yet. Three South Carolina officials -- the Board of Education chairman, the superintendent of education, and governor -- must agree to join the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium.

There's always a catch. For Haley, Zais and the state board chair to agree, what additional pain will public schoolchildren and their educators have to suffer?

Superintendent Mick Zais opposed the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, but Jay W. Ragley, the department's deputy superintendent for legislative and public affairs, said Zais would sign the agreement.

Zais opposed the standards because they limit the state's ability to determine academic standards in English/language arts and mathematics, and that same concern was echoed among state board members Wednesday.

Larry Kobrovsky, a Charleston attorney who serves on the state board, said public education always has been a local and state function, and the U.S. Constitution doesn't call for federal involvement in that. Adopting the new tests is the final step in ceding South Carolina's educational decision-making, responsibility and statutory duties, he said.

"What we're doing today, make no mistake about it, is completing the nationalization of public education," he said during the meeting. "This is the day we're giving our sovereignty away."

What is it with South Carolina and sovereignty? From the beginning, we've been so worried that we might be considered equal to other colonies and states if we agree to participate with them and abide by a set of shared laws and social norms.

What has "sovereignty" gotten us thus far?

David Blackmon, the board's chairman-elect, voiced his disagreement with that philosophy during the meeting, saying if the board didn't want to implement the Common Core Standards, it should've made that decision 18 months ago. Hundreds of the state's teachers support joining the SMARTER consortium, and this will allow the state's students to compete with their peers nationally and internationally, he said.

The state board also agreed Wednesday to become a governing member of the consortium, which means its input will be considered in the tests' development. Right now, South Carolina is a participating state and can't make decisions that affect the tests.

There it is. We don't want to play ball unless we control the game and call the shots.

Eight-year-olds on the playground understand this kind of behavior.

Imagine South Carolina public schools, governed by educators

What a concept. This column appears in the current edition of Education Week magazine, co-authored by a set of "2011-12 U.S. Department of Education Teaching Ambassador Fellows; participants in the program must be practicing teachers with a minimum of five years' experience and demonstrated leadership."

They describe a world so incredible that it's difficult to visualize, at least here in South Carolina. Educators governing education? People whose passions and preparations are rooted in a desire to educate children, allowed to create and implement the system of education in our state?

Dare to dream.

"Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let's offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren't helping kids learn." —President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, Jan. 24, 2012.

President Obama said in his State of the Union address to Congress what many teachers in America have been yearning to hear from their president: Teachers matter, we change lives, and we do this hard work to make a difference in the lives of students.

He also acknowledged what every good teacher knows: that an accountability system that puts too much emphasis on test scores undermines a well-rounded education. But implicit in his speech was a challenge to America and to teachers to rebuild and strengthen the profession—a challenge that teachers are more than eager to accept.

As 2011-12 U.S. Department of Education teaching ambassador fellows, we have heard from many teachers that the field has lost its luster. In our role as teaching ambassadors, we have met with a wide cross-section of teachers in town halls and smaller discussion groups across the country. In these conversations, we have heard real despondency over the constraints of the No Child Left Behind Act that have caused schools to focus on testing and teacher evaluation in ways that are oppressive and rob our profession of much of the joy of teaching and learning.

We've listened to countless stories about a law that has raised standards without providing support for schools to meet them. And we have cringed when some of our most effective colleagues acknowledged that they can no longer afford to stay in a difficult profession that asks so much of them but barely affords a middle-class lifestyle. "We didn't get into teaching to be millionaires," they say, "but we have to be able to feed our families."

What we like about the president's speech is not that he acknowledges our grievances, though, admittedly, it feels good to be heard. What appeals to us is that President Obama understands that as a country we must do much more than simply tweak a structure that is not working. Educators want to lead the transformation and rebuilding of teaching so that our work improves students' lives and restores pride in our profession.

Teachers welcome this transformation. Neither students nor teachers are served by a structure that treats some teachers like interchangeable cogs in a machine. We long to lead our own profession because when we drive our craft, we will see huge shifts in responsibility, leadership, pay, and respect for us. As National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel describes in the NEA's "action agenda to strengthen teaching," issued in December, "I see this as the essence of a true profession: putting teachers in charge of the quality of their profession."

What would teachers do if they ran the schools? We would raise the bar for membership in our profession, recruiting the best candidates and insisting that teacher-preparation programs become more rigorous and relevant. About 62 percent of all new teachers—almost two-thirds—report they felt unprepared for the realities of their classrooms. As Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said, "Imagine what our country would do if 62 percent of our doctors felt unprepared to practice medicine—you would have a revolution in our medical schools."

A transformed profession would give teachers much more responsibility and flexibility to make decisions that meet their students' educational needs—allowing access to and training with technology, shifting class sizes, and restructuring the school day so that they have time to collaborate with colleagues and engage in professional learning and problem-solving.

"Educators want to lead the transformation and rebuilding of teaching so that our work improves students' lives and restores pride in our profession."

We would offer teachers a professional salary and career pathways that acknowledge their skill and commitment in one of the most complex, demanding, and important jobs in the world. We would insist on great school leaders, with principals who have high expectations; develop all teachers as lifelong learners; and create positive school cultures where students and teachers succeed.

As President Obama acknowledged, teachers are creative and passionate. But like workers in many other professions, we expect to be held accountable for results. We yearn to help create fair and thorough teacher-evaluation systems and have access to data to make informed decisions about what is working and what isn't, to direct our professional learning, and to help decide who stays in our profession. The president was right when he said, "That is a bargain worth making."

Now more than ever, teachers long to lead their profession so that we finally resolve the important educational challenges in this country. A quarter of our children fail to finish high school on time, and barely four in 10 earn any type of postsecondary degree. For children of color, outcomes are even worse. When we see the statistics—that 7,000 students drop out of school every day—we feel pain for those teens and shame and guilt that we were not able to prevent this tragedy.

On top of that, school districts are getting ready to slam into an awful reality, that before the end of the decade, more than a million baby-boomer teachers—fully a third of America's teachers—will retire or leave the teaching profession. To recruit and retain the best teachers, we need to offer rewarding jobs and competitive salaries.

We were especially pleased to read, in the recently released "Blueprint for an America Built to Last," that the president plans to ask Congress for funding that will "challenge states and districts to work with their teachers and unions to reform the entire teaching profession—from training and licensing to compensation, career ladders, and tenure."

Educators want to take on this work. As highly skilled specialists, we are not afraid of owning our profession. We are not afraid of being held accountable for results when we are given the responsibility and flexibility to craft our profession. We are confident that the president understands what it will take to transform teaching to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and we are eager to join with our colleagues across the country in moving the profession forward.

The authors are 2011-12 U.S. Department of Education Teaching Ambassador Fellows; participants in the program must be practicing teachers with a minimum of five years' experience and demonstrated leadership. Geneviève DeBose, a 5th and 6th grade teacher from the Bronx Charter School for the Arts, in New York City, works on middle school reform in the Office of the Secretary. Claire Jellinek, an 11th and 12th grade social studies teacher from South Valley Academy Charter High School in Albuquerque, N.M., works on issues related to educational technology and international education in the Office of the Secretary. Gregory Mullenholz, a staff-development teacher at Twinbrook Elementary in Rockville, Md., works on teacher-quality issues in the Office of the Secretary. Shakera Walker, a kindergarten teacher in the Young Achievers Science and Math School in Boston, works for the department's early-learning initiatives. Maryann Woods-Murphy, a Spanish teacher at Northern Highlands Regional High School in Bergen County, N.J., works on labor-management issues in the Office of the Secretary. This Commentary also appears on the ed.gov website.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Who's in charge at the Department of Education?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasonable question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it Ragley?

How SC's Gressette Commission invented vouchers, tuition tax credits

This year, for the fifth or sixth time in a decade, South Carolina lawmakers are trying again to pass a bill that diverts public revenue to private and parochial schools through vouchers or, more subtly, through "tuition tax credits."

It's a ruse that has failed each time it's been tried, thanks to lawmakers straining mightily to drag South Carolina, kicking and screaming, into the twentieth century. As most civilized nations, and a right smart measure of America, has made it safely into the twenty-first century by now, one would think the task is not quite as arduous as all that. But one has to read his South Carolina history to understand why it remains rusted to its root.

In 1975, Ernest Lander Jr. and Richard J. Calhoun compiled a dense and intelligent little volume titled "Two Decades of Change: The South Since the Supreme Court Desegregation Decison." I highly recommend it and intend to quote from it in a future note.

But in chasing down a loose rabbit from the Lander-Calhoun text, I discovered a much more recent tome and couldn't believe the luck of it. Author J. Russell Hawkins, a doctoral candidate at Rice University, submitted a dissertation in 2009 titled "Religion, Race, and Resistance: White Evangelicals and the Dilemma of Integration in South Carolina 1950-1975." In reading now-Dr. Hawkins's work, I felt like Alice in Wonderland -- peering into a looking-glass at the 1950s and 1960s and seeing 2012 reflected back at me.

Hawkins explains expertly, in great detail and in rich context, the origins of South Carolina conservative lawmakers' lust for vouchers and tuition tax credits. Though it's unfair to simplify a work of such depth, I'm tempted to report that, as many have imagined, the issue is race, was always race, is still race, and will be race for as far as the eye can see from the present vantage point.

Hawkins's work is a full book, nearly 300 pages, but it's only available at present in dissertation form and I'll certainly recommend the product when it's published as a commercial work.

For now, I want to share excerpts that might inform those curious about vouchers, tuition tax credits and South Carolina's strange abundance of private schools named for the heroes of segregation.

In South Carolina, the idea of utilizing private schools as a way to avoid public school desegregation actually predated the 1954 Brown decision as state leaders, reading the writing on the wall, took steps that would allow white students flexibility should the integration mandate come to pass.

In a 1951 speech urging state lawmakers to allocate money for the construction of new schools for African American children, Governor James Byrnes suggested that if the public schools were forced to desegregate, the newly built schools could be handed over to citizens to form their own private segregated schools.

In the post-Brown era, however, favorable talk of encouraging private schools as an alternative to desegregated public schools did not surface among state officials until April 1957 when the Ways and Means Committee of the state's House of Representative considered a bill that would grant tax exemptions for parents whose children attended private schools. State Senator Marion Gressette, who had been appointed five years earlier to head an advisory committee to maintain segregation, reported that the state was sufficiently prepared "to meet any situation that may develop in the present [school desegregation] crisis" and pronounced that there was no need in 1957 to pass additional legislation.

The Gressette Committee, in fact, had been instrumental in the passage of several legislative bills two years earlier that provided white South Carolinians firm legal ground to avoid school desegregation if and when that battle was to be fought. These acts included repealing the compulsory school attendance law, which allowed parents to hold their children out of desegregated public schools without legal consequence, and granting more authority to local school boards, which effectively allowed local boards to construct bureaucratic roadblocks to integration. In the summer of 1957, therefore, state leaders saw no need to enact legislation promoting private schools.

In October 1958 a member of the South Carolina legislature representing a low country county with a high African American population again raised the issue of private schools. Sam Harrell, a white representative from Florence County who was irritated by what he perceived as inaction by Gressette Committee, publicly stated that the segregation committee "should do something to set up private schools before the courts act."

Harrell's perspective in the fall of 1958 was no doubt colored by President Dwight D. Eisenhower's deployment of the United States Army to enforce the desegregation of Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas. Indeed, many white South Carolina citizens looked anxiously at the situation in Arkansas and pledged to support their segregationist neighbors to the west who vowed to continue fighting against school desegregation. The men's club of St. Matthew's Methodist Church in Bishopsville, South Carolina, for instance, passed a resolution of support for Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus and his fight "against the unchristian [sic] and evil forces of the Supreme Court and federal government caused by the pressure of politicians, sociologists, psychologist and do-gooders, ignorant of the issues at hand... ."

One Baptist minister from Olanta, South Carolina, urged members of the Citizens' Council in South Carolina to send money to Arkansas to help support private schools there. The issue was so important, Reverend Marion A. Woodson believed, that it was time for South Carolinians to make sacrifices to support the private school effort. "We have reached the point," Woodson declared, "where we must be willing to give up the second car, cancel a vacation trip and buy less clothing in order to provide private schools for our children."

Stunning admission, isn't it? Better to deprive our own children of a high quality of life than to allow other people's children to go to school with ours.

That's us.

The effort to provide private schools for South Carolina white children was soon championed by the state's Farm Bureau and Citizens' Councils. The former group petitioned the state legislature in November 1958 to give "serious consideration" to proposals that would abolish public education in South Carolina altogether. Meanwhile, seven Citizens' Council groups in the Charleston area conducted a survey of the cities' public buildings and churches to investigate the logistical feasibility for private schools should the need arise.

Despite the concerns of white citizens, school desegregation in South Carolina was not an imminent threat in 1958. There would, in fact, be no integration of any kind in South Carolina elementary or high schools until 1963. While South Carolina held out longer than the rest of the South in keeping all levels of educational facilities segregated—-it was not until Harvey Gantt enrolled at Clemson College in January 1963 that South Carolina joined the rest of the Union in admitting black students into one of its public educational institutions-—the fact was, the decade following the Brown decision produced little change in the demographics of the vast majority of southern public schools, particularly in the Deep South.
...
So long as desegregation was merely talked about rather than enacted, the need for an alternative for public education remained at bay. Despite occasional calls for private schools throughout the late 1950s and first few years of the 1960s, therefore, it was not until 1963 that the South Carolina legislature gave serious attention to providing a safety valve in the event that desegregation occurred.

In January 1963, just weeks after the state had witnessed Harvey Gantt integrate Clemson College, a bill was presented to the South Carolina House of Representatives to provide tuition grants to public school students who decided to withdraw from public schools and enroll in private institutions. The bill proposed that the state give parents the amount South Carolina spent per pupil—-$225 a year for elementary school students, $250 for high school in 1963-—for use toward tuition costs at private schools.

In order to avoid questions of church/state separation, the bill stipulated that the money could not be used at religiously affiliated schools. The grants were to be available to families regardless of race.

The same proposal, with updated figures attached, has been batted around for the past several years in our state capital, for precisely the same reasons.

Of course, no one says the proposals are being made to keep black children and white children separate -- even Lee Atwater acknowledged in the late 1980s that you have to be more subtle than that. But as soon as the proposals were formulated by the Gressette Commission and Gressette's segregationist cohorts, they were already savvy enough to play it off as something else.

When you reach positions of tremendous stature in public office, and the nation is moving in a direction that you fought, you can't jump up and down, wave your arms and shout, "I'm a racist! I hate people who don't look like me, and I don't want their children to have the same access to education that I provide to mine!"

Instead, you have to use sophisticated code words like "local control" and "accountable to high standards."

Demonstrating that state law makers were aware of the necessity for toning down explicitly racial arguments by 1963, school desegregation was "not mentioned or in any way alluded to" when legislators presented the bill. In talking about the bill in his state of the state address, Governor Donald S. Russell justified the necessity of the legislation, saying that passage of the tuition grants would help keep public schools accountable to high standards. What Russell failed to mention in his talk of public accountability for the state's public schools were three desegregation suits filed against South Carolina schools pending in federal courts at the time the tuition grant bill was proposed.

The tuition grant idea was first hatched by Senator Marion Gressette's segregation committee as a safeguard for segregation in the event that the courts ruled that South Carolina's public schools must integrate; a fact that revealed that the issue of race played a larger role in the drive for tuition grants than advocates publically admitted. As cautious as legislators and the governor had been in not mentioning race or school desegregation when debating the merits of tuition grants, the Gressette Committee itself was less discreet in discussing the need for the legislation. In the report proposing the tuition grant measure, the committee declared "South Carolina at all costs must prevent the development of its grammar and high schools into the lawless 'blackboard jungles' that integration has made" in other parts of the country. It was coded language, to be sure, but undoubtedly communicated volumes to South Carolinians anxious about school desegregation. The idea of "lawless blackboard jungles," in fact, was a theme white South Carolinians sounded time and again in the following decade, albeit without the unseemly racialized undertones.

The tuition grant bill was by no means widely endorsed by South Carolinians.

Probably recognizing the true impetus for the grants, some legislators right away foresaw problems with the bill passing Constitutional muster. The state NAACP threatened immediate court action if the bill was passed. Additionally, state education officials, already financially pressed, were particularly critical of the tuition grant plan because state school funding was directly tied to student enrollment.

Some legislators believed the amount of money the bill allocated for children to attend private schools was not enough to cover the cost of tuition for most families and would therefore only serve as a subsidy for wealthy South Carolinians who already had their children enrolled in private schools.

You see, our evolving aristocratic elite picked up on the money instantly -- it wasn't enough to cover the costs of educating their children in the style to which they'd become accustomed. More would have to be done.

One private citizens' group supported the bill's intent but worried that its exclusion of religious schools was too restrictive and requested that the General Assembly amend the bill to allow tuition grants to be used at church-related schools.

George Cornish, the attorney for the Foundation for Independent Schools, a group seeking the bill's amendment, argued that disallowing the tuition grants for use at religious schools discriminated against parents who wanted their children educated in such institutions. More importantly, Cornish presciently reasoned, even if a private school was not sponsored by a particular church or explicitly religious in its intent, newly established private schools would likely need to make use of church buildings to help defer overhead costs until the time the schools could become financially stable enough to move into their own facilities.

Ah, that was the key to the whole show -- the beginning of the formal relationship between the right wing and churches, rooted in shared desire for exclusivity.

Despite pressure from those who wanted the bill voted down and those who desired an expanded version of the legislation, the General Assembly passed the tuition grants bill in May 1963 with the clause prohibiting their use at religious schools intact.

The bill encountered no serious opposition from lawmakers in either chamber, passing 78-28 in the House and 35-4 in the Senate. In its final version, the legislature allocated $155 per pupil who opted out of public schools to attend accredited non-religious private institutions. It also provided that local districts could decide for themselves if they wanted to participate and could subsidize the grant with additional local money if thought prudent.

Hawkins found one -- at least one -- senator who told the truth about the bill and its motives:

One state senator who was in the minority opposing the bill took to the floor just before the vote in an attempt to lay bare the bill's true intent. Despite the fact that lawmakers had consciously made no mention of desegregation in debating the bill, state senator Roger Scott declared bluntly, "we might as well say it, it's about white people and Negroes."

Gressette and his disciples spent their careers trying to figure out ways around that one, simple, plain fact, but there it was.

And here it still is.

For South Carolinians worried about school desegregation, the tuition grants bill passed at a particularly fortuitous moment. Just months after the tuition grants bill became law, a United States District Court judge in Columbia, South Carolina, heard arguments on whether twelve African American students would be allowed to enroll in white high schools in Charleston for the 1963 school year. In arguing their case for the necessity of maintaining segregation, the Charleston school district called a professor emeritus of biology from the University of South Carolina to testify that "Negroes have 'an innate lack of capacity' for matching the performance capabilities of whites," which justified educating them separately from whites. The expert witness based his analysis of the intellectual abilities of the races on the weight and perceived characteristics of the brains of whites and African Americans.

In his decision, Judge Robert Martin rejected the school district's pseudo scientific defense and ruled that the black plaintiffs were to be allowed to attend one of the four white high schools in Charleston. Additionally, Judge Martin ruled that all the heretofore exclusively white Charleston schools would have to implement some amount of desegregation by the start of the 1964-1965 school year.

The era of complete segregation in South Carolina's primary and secondary schools had at last come to an end. In closing one sordid chapter of the state's racial history, however, Martin's 1963 ruling also marked the beginning of another in South Carolina: the rise of private schools to avoid racial desegregation. And as it had done all throughout the era of massive resistance, religion played an important role in sustaining the private schools.

As the 1963 school year began with four of their city's schools experiencing desegregation for the first time, white groups in Charleston immediately began meeting to discuss opening private schools to take advantage of the newly enacted tuition grant program. Five separate groups in Charleston alone made plans for private schools, including the First Presbyterian Church of Charleston, which carefully wrote the school charter so it was unassociated with the church itself and thereby qualified for the tuition grants.

The scene in Charleston was one that was replicated across the state starting in the mid 1960s as court decisions and federal funding programs led to desegregated schools in communities throughout South Carolina. Complying with court rulings and the Department of Housing Education and Welfare (HEW) guidelines that mandated desegregation in exchange for federal money, South Carolina school districts between 1964 and 1967 produced freedom-of-choice plans for school integration that produced little more than "token" desegregation. These plans invariably resulted in no white students choosing to attend black schools, while only a miniscule number of African American students "integrated" formerly all-white schools.

For all intents and purposes, the practical result of these plans was the continuation of segregated education in the state. During the 1965-1966 school year, for instance, despite 80 percent of the state's school districts being in compliance with HEW guidelines for acceptable desegregation plans, only 1.5 percent of African American students in South Carolina attended school with white students.

During this same period, thirty-two new private schools—-all racially segregated—-opened their doors. As federal courts' rulings forced southern schools to move beyond token desegregation and demonstrate substantial integration percentages, private schools in South Carolina flourished. The rate at which private schools were created was directly proportional to the amount of desegregation occurring in state schools. In 1970, the year the Supreme Court's ruling in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education mandated immediate and massive desegregation take place throughout the South, 93 percent of South Carolina's African American students attended desegregated schools. The previous year, only 29 percent had done so.

Not coincidentally 1970 also marked by the advent of thirty-six new segregated private schools in South Carolina, the most in a single year.

Gressette and his commission failed to keep federal law out of South Carolina completely, but he succeeded in bringing together the political right and the evangelical community, and in giving them cover long enough to get their operations up and running. By the time the Gressette Commission was dissolved in the late 1960s, the segregation academy movement had sufficient momentum.

Integration would be thwarted after all, and those who wished never to integrate -- to view individuals of other races as equal human beings, and treat them accordingly -- would have plenty of options available to them.

Between 1964 and 1972, when the majority of school desegregation in their state took place, white South Carolinians formed 111 new private schools. In 1973 these recently established private schools enrolled 25,000 white students.

And South Carolina found a way to lead its region again!

South Carolina had a higher percentage of students enrolled in private schools than any other southern state by the mid 1970s. But the same pattern of public school desegregation followed by a rash of private school openings that occurred in South Carolina was repeated to varying degrees in all the states of the South. The same factors at play in desegregating South Carolina schools-—court rulings and access to federal money—-insured that the integration of public schools in the former Confederacy quicken its snail-like speed. The microscopic number of African American students attending formerly all-white schools throughout the South rose to 46 percent of the total southern black school-age population by 1973.
...
In October 1969 an estimated 300,000 students throughout the South were enrolled in private schools upholding racial segregation. Following a November mandate that same year from the Supreme Court ordering school districts to integrate "at once," the estimated enrollment numbers jumped an astonishing 33 percent. By 1971 the number of pupils attending segregated private schools topped a half million. Twenty years after the Supreme Court handed down its Brown decision, it was estimated that between three and four thousand private schools had been established in southern states whose roots could be found in the desegregation of public schools. Attendance at these "segregationist academies" accounted for an estimated three-quarters of a million white schoolchildren whose parents believed strongly enough in segregation to pull their children out of the free public school system and pay to enroll them in these newly established institutions.

Most state money that may have originally been devoted to help parents pay for these private schools was frozen by court challenges by 1967. In South Carolina, for instance, tuition grant payments were halted almost as soon as they were dispersed.

Opponents of the payments were granted an injunction against the state-sponsored tuition grants, and the courts ultimately ruled them unconstitutional in 1968. Despite this, however, the growth of private schools in South Carolina remained unabated after school desegregation began in 1963. The same scenario held for white families across the South: as the 1960s progressed and school boards at last put desegregation into practice, many white parents throughout the region demonstrated that they were willing to bear the financial burden of private school tuition to keep their children out of racially integrated public schools.

Faced with the requirement to send their children to desegregated public schools, parents instead chose to simply create their own schools. Independent of public funding, these schools sheltered white children from mixing with members of different races.

In South Carolina some felt that the new wave of private schools operating in the state by the mid 1960s necessitated the creation of an organization to help further private education in the state. Accordingly, in 1965 T. Elliot Wannamaker, the headmaster of the Wade Hampton Academy, invited representatives from seven of the other newly formed private schools to Orangeburg in order to discuss the creation of an independent school association. As a result of that meeting, the South Carolina Independent School Association (SCISA) requested and received a corporate charter from the state.

The executive secretary of the SCISA in the first two years of its existence was a young lawyer from Barnwell County, South Carolina, named Tom Turnipseed. As one of the founders of the Jefferson Davis Academy in Blackville, South Carolina, Turnipseed was committed to the idea of private education, and as the executive secretary of the SCISA, Turnipseed was instrumental in establishing private schools throughout the state. The majority of these schools were located in the South Carolina low country, where the African American population density was highest.

In addition to insuring that the quickly forming new schools were able to obtain tax-exempt status, Turnipseed's other chief responsibility was to spread information about the SCISA. As the public relations manager for the SCISA, Turnipseed's primary message was that the newly formed association was not a segregationist organization but instead was a group of prominent citizens concerned about quality education in the state. In later years, however, after he had undergone a transformation in his racial attitudes, Turnipseed admitted that race played much more of a motivating factor in the establishment of the independent schools in South Carolina than the association let on at the time.

Publically, the SCISA never mentioned race, reflecting the significant change taking place in southern society at that time. In reality, however, the independent school movement of the mid 1960s "had everything to do with race." The SCISA even brought in a scientific expert in the mid-1960s to explain to association board members and headmasters that the frontal lobes of African Americans' brains lacked the deep folds found in the brains of whites, supposedly inhibiting the formers' capacity for critical thinking.

Ideas such as these were the basis on which the Charleston school district had petitioned the U.S. district court to uphold segregation in the city's public schools. The school district appealed the ruling rejecting these supposedly scientific findings all the way to the Supreme Court in 1964. Even though the highest court in land rejected the notion of the innate inferiority of the black race without comment, such ideas were still being promulgated among the supporters of the private schools in South Carolina.

Tom Turnipseed was only with the SCISA for two years before leaving South Carolina to help organize George Wallace's presidential campaign in 1968. During his brief stint with the SCISA, Turnipseed helped organize more than thirty schools while broadcasting the message that the newly formed schools had nothing to do with race.

Despite the mantra of quality education, the leaders of the SCISA were unquestionably driven to support private education at least in part because of racial prejudice. SCISA president, Elliott Wannamaker, for instance, had written two years before founding the private school association that the "separation of the races in education, in recreation, in living quarters, and in churches is in the best interest of both races and is essential to the preservation of racial integrity."

As executive secretary, Tom Turnipseed shared Wannamaker's racial views and even withdrew from the Methodist denomination to join the Southern Methodists who remained firmly committed to segregation of the races. It was not too difficult to see the racist motives underneath the thin veneer of "quality education" the SCISA espoused to justify its schools' existence.

Religion figured prominently in the creation of private schools in both South Carolina and the region as a whole. In South Carolina, white churches were essential in forming many of the member schools in the South Carolina Independent School Association. As leader of the SCISA, in fact, Elliott Wannamaker encouraged groups interested in starting private schools to work in conjunction with local churches, which had ample Sunday School classroom space to house the schools during the week.

Wannamaker's own school, Wade Hampton Academy, spent the first year of its existence housed in the Northside Baptist Church in Orangeburg. In time the school was able to raise enough capital to move out of the church building and construct its own facilities, but for Wade Hampton Academy, the church was instrumental in getting the school off the ground.

Many churches in South Carolina, however, did more than just house newly formed private schools. While some churches like Northside Baptist granted private schools use of their facilities while having no formal association with the schools, a good number of churches took an active role in creating and running racially segregated schools that operated under the authority of the churches themselves.

According to one study, of the 111 segregation academies in South Carolina by 1973, more than one-third were church sponsored and operated. That churches established schools for the sake of avoiding racial integration is strong evidence that religion played an instrumental part in the fight against desegregation into the 1970s. The schools that met across the South in church basements, Sunday School classrooms, and fellowship halls in the wake of desegregation did so with God's implied sanction. The inescapable message of a racially segregated school created under the aegis of a church was divine favor for such a school.

The statement these church-affiliated schools made, tacit or otherwise, was that God supported racial segregation—-exactly the religious argument conservative white Christians had preached for decades in explicit segregationist folk theology and in more recent years in covert appeals to racial orthodoxy as demonstrated by the arguments during the Methodist merger.

Even the secular private academies established in the South, however, were not without religious underpinnings that helped buttress the righteousness of the segregationist cause. "Religion is an integral part of the Independent School movement because it's an integral part of the South," Donald Roberts, a principal of one of the newly formed private schools, professed in a 1972 interview. "Our people-—supporters of the Independent Schools—-are convinced that God is behind us. That I am sure of, we are doing God's work," Roberts continued. "This is something somebody outside the South can't understand. If you don't include that [the religious] aspect you're missing a good part of the motivation behind this movement. People believe full heartedly that God doesn't want us to mix."

Religion, therefore, was not limited in its importance to the private schools directly associated with local churches. Even schools that claimed no religious affiliation relied heavily on Christian reputations to justify their existence.

Many of these secular private schools also emphasized Christian principles in their classrooms. One study examining the philosophy of the southern private school movement found that even the non-sectarian schools "open classes with prayer... [which is] expanded into a considerable devotional exercise, with readings from the Bible." In throwing his considerable political weight behind the SCISA, Senator Strom Thurmond reiterated the idea that independent schools, although often unassociated with any church, nonetheless maintained a palpable religious identity. As Thurmond told his constituents in South Carolina, the newly created independent schools "are unabashedly Christian in outlook and daily practice," despite the fact that they were not church-related.

The Southern Council Academy provides a useful example of how schools not affiliated with local churches still imbued their students with Christian teachings.

Established in Durham, North Carolina, in September 1971, the Southern Council Academy was one of 396 institutions in a network of schools overseen by the national organization of the Citizens' Councils of America that year alone.45 "Although Southern Council Academy is not affiliated with any church group," the school's handbook informed potential applicants, "it is a 'Christian' school. A basic premise for our school is 'The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge.'" In addition to the quote from the book of Proverbs, the handbook assured parents that "every home room teacher daily conducts devotions during the home room period." The headmaster of the school "is also a Christian minister, [and] teaches a Bible class daily...." The school also required chapel once a week for the high school and elementary students who attended.

Conspicuously missing from the Southern Council Academy's informational handbook was any mention of race. At the time school officials wrote the handbook in the early 1970s, however, explicit mention of racial segregation as a purpose of these private schools was usually absent. In addition to the fact that an openly discriminatory policy was outside the bounds of social acceptability by the 1970s, the omission of race from private school handbooks was in large part also the result of changes in IRS tax codes, which required private schools to strike any mention of racial discrimination from their institutional charter in order to maintain tax exempt status.

"As middle class whites in the South have become more conscious of their image in racial matters," one study suggested in 1976, "they have begun to say (and to believe) that they have many reasons for patronizing the schools that have little to do with race." This sentiment was certainly true. Parents began citing behavioral problems and lower academic standards that they saw growing in desegregated public schools as justification for sending their children to receive religious-based teachings in all-white private schools whose very existence was owed to racial integration in public schools. Even a headmaster of one of the schools in the South Carolina Independent School Association conceded that "there can be no doubt that one of the major factors affecting the growth of those (independent) schools and the establishment of a great number of private schools in 1964 and the following years in South Carolina was the beginning of mass integration of black students into the public schools."
........
As racist attitudes were mitigated throughout the state in the 1970s, many South Carolinians sounded seemingly sincere appeals for private education. Some parents saw private education as good and necessary regardless of its ties to segregation, past or present. "Parents are prohibited from giving their children the school environment they would like," one South Carolina father wrote to William Workman. "When pupils are bused away from their communities to achieve the kind of integration our courts seem to desire, it not only hurts the child, but it hurts the community socially.... It is not so much the integration but rather the environment in the public schools to which I object."

One South Carolina mother who wrote to Workman spoke for many who were growing tired of the constant association between private schools and racism: "it is a little exasperating that 'private school' has become a dirty word, synonymous with racism and sin." For many South Carolina parents by 1975, private schools were not likely regarded as intentionally segregationist havens, despite the institutions' history. Instead, they were viewed as something necessary to make sure the sons and daughters of South Carolina received the best education available.

Yet southern private academies of the mid 1970s simply cannot be divorced from their segregationist origins. In a 1972 interview, one of the founders of Clarendon Hall, a private school in Summerton, South Carolina, claimed that the school-—which operated in the county that Briggs v. Elliot originated-—"was started not so much because of integration as [it was] the Supreme Court decisions on prayer and teaching the Bible in school."

Although this kind of justification for private schools were becoming popular in the 1970s, they were difficult words to believe coming from S. Emory Rogers, the lawyer who had argued for segregated schools before the Supreme Court in 1954; who went on to serve as the president of the South Carolina Association of Citizens' Councils; and who published a pamphlet on the compatibility of Christian love and segregation that circulated across the South in the 1960s.

Even if Rogers was sincere in his claim that Bible reading and prayer were the primary cause for Clarendon Hall's founding, the enrollment history suggests a different reason for the school's continued success. When Clarendon Hall opened in conjunction with a Baptist church in 1968, 127 students attended; the following year enrollment stood at 124. In 1970, however, the first year Clarendon County saw significant school integration, Clarendon Hall's student body swelled to 434 pupils. By 1972 enrollment topped 500 and the school was no longer associated with the Baptist church. The fact that enrollment at Clarendon Hall exploded after desegregation and continued to grow even when the school was no longer operated by the Baptist church cast doubts on the idea that religious concerns were the sole motivation behind the county's largest private academy.

By the early 1970s the South teemed with schools like Clarendon Hall that were created in the years between 1954 and 1970 as the threat of desegregation spread through the region. As a character candidly admits in a Walker Percy novel written in the heyday of the private school movement, these institutions were founded "on religious and patriotic principles and to keep Negroes out."

Percy perhaps used one conjunction too many in his description of the South's private schools. Schools "founded on religious and patriotic principles to keep Negroes out" would have been a more accurate description of the segregationist academy movement that took hold in the South by the mid 1960s. When the Supreme Court ordered schools desegregated in 1954, the Deep South held out valiantly. Many who participated in the massive resistance against integration did so with the unassailable belief that God was against racial integration. It was a belief white southerners found supported as they viewed nature, read their Bibles, and listened to their ministers.

Some historians have suggested that segregationists gave up their fight relatively easily compared to their pro-slavery forebears in large part because religion was not a motivating force for twentieth century southerners as it was for their Confederate ancestors. But this view perhaps underestimates the rise of private academies in the South and conservative religion's importance to the new schools.

Massive resistance morphed into segregationist academies; white evangelical religion justified both.

History, friends. Facts in chronological context.

If you're ever in Columbia and have a few minutes to spare, you should stop by the State House complex and marvel at the statues and the names on the buildings. There are only a few statues and buildings, so who they represent and celebrate reflect the state's deepest-held values.

Among the statues, you'll find the murderous governor Pitchfork Ben Tillman facing the Confederate flag, the war hero and Confederate redeemer Wade Hampton on his steed, and the loveable statesman Strom Thurmond walking tall. In a leafy front corner of the complex, as if hiding or hidden purposefully, you'll find Governor James Byrnes, seated and solemn, who served as assistant president and Secretary of State to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Then, among the buildings behind the State House, there's the John C. Calhoun Building, the Edgar Brown Building, the Rembert Dennis Building, the Solomon Blatt Building that houses the House offices, and the Marion Gressette Building, which houses the Senate offices.

While we breathe, we hope.

Why is Williamsburg County losing its student population?

An official three-month study of Williamsburg County's loss of student population is yet to come, but trustees who met last night began the conversation using these troubling figures:

Student enrollment by year:
1999-2000--------6,409
2000-2001--------6,253
2001-2002--------6,144
2002-2003--------5,893
2003-2004--------5,759
2004-2005--------5,633
2005-2006--------5,502
2006-2007--------5,314
2007-2008--------5,290
2008-2009--------5,132
2009-2010--------5,011
2010-2011--------4,743
2011-2012--------4,573
2012-2013--------4,423 (projected)

The figures are troubling because school funding is based upon student enrollment, and the students remaining in Williamsburg County public schools have no ally or advocate at the highest levels of government -- not Governor Nikki Haley, and not Superintendent Mick Zais -- to protect them from cuts in resources.

At a Tuesday, Feb. 7 meeting, financial consultant John Thames presented the district’s finance committee with an array of statistics that showed just how many students the district has lost.
...
Average daily membership is defined by the ability of a student to attend school for 180 days during an academic year. One unit of average daily membership would be made up of one student that attended school for all 180 days of school, where as a half unit of average daily membership will be constituted by a student that only had the opportunity to attend 90 days of school.

“It’s imperative that we keep the students in the classroom,” Thames said.

...Williamsburg County School District Superintendent Dr. Yvonne Jefferson-Barnes said she believes the problem is two-fold.

“I honestly believe that a lot of it has to do with the location of our schools and the boundaries surrounding where our students live,” Jefferson-Barnes said. “I also think there is a significant misconception regarding what we are able to offer and all of the positive things that are going on in this system.”
...
In the past three years, the district has improved its South Carolina Department of Education report card rating from “at-risk,” to “average,” and is one of the few school districts in the state to pull off such a feat in only three years.

Clearly, the district is doing good things institutionally, and moving in the right direction. But something must be going on. I'd look at business and industry trends in the county during the past decade -- have Williamsburg County businesses closed or moved, and have families had to move to take jobs?

Or, since the 2010 census data is or should soon be available, look at the birth rates in Williamsburg County. Are families having fewer children? Has the infant mortality rate gone up?

Or is the issue a stickier one: Have certain demographic groups moved their children to private schools, leaving other, smaller, demographic groups in the public schools? Let's hope not.

If the root of the student population decline is economic, then maybe Governor Haley can get her Commerce Department to bring some more high-paying jobs into Williamsburg County and attract more families to come back home.

Yes, I know Williamsburg County's working families and public schoolchildren aren't even on Haley's priority list, but we can dream, can't we?

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Child poverty characterizes South Carolina's image again

One day, when enough South Carolinians are sick and tired of hearing stories like this one, our lawmakers will take steps to correct the problem. Until then, South Carolina will continue to be known as the state that doesn't take care of its impoverished children, and the state where public school educators care as much for their students' well-being as for their standardized test scores.

This one comes to us from Huffington Post, where a woman who spends her time addressing the needs of children in Third World countries noticed that poor children in South Carolina bear a striking resemblance to poor children in those other places.

My work with Save the Children takes me all around the world. In just the past few months, I've traveled to Egypt, Uganda, Kenya and several places in between. Everywhere I go, I meet people who are doing remarkable work for children and hear about how individuals are giving their all to keep kids in their community safe, healthy and happy. But one of the stories that I find replaying over and over in my head is a story I heard right here in America's backyard, at St. Paul Elementary School in Clarendon County, South Carolina.

The determined and energetic principal there, Rosa Dingle, told me about a recent school day when one of her teachers called her down to her classroom and asked her to watch the class for half an hour. Rosa went, perplexed about why her teacher would suddenly need to leave the classroom to run an errand. When she arrived, she pulled the teacher aside, asked what the emergency was and found that her colleague went to the store to buy a new pair of shoes for one of her students.

The little boy had outgrown his old shoes and cut a hole in the front so that his toes were peeking out -- but winter was on its way and his teacher couldn't bear to see him in shoes that would give him no protection against the frost.

Rosa's story about an exceptional teacher highlighted what is, unfortunately, an unexceptional tale across America. Today, nearly one in four American children is living in poverty. In Clarendon County, where the childhood poverty rate is more than 38 percent, it's one in three children. Growing up in poverty means having fallen 18 months behind your peers developmentally by age four. And the negative effects continue throughout high school, at which point 32 percent of those who lived in poverty for more than half their lives will never graduate, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation's 2011 report "Double Jeopardy."

It's hard for lawmakers to address issues like these when there's a distinct possibility that the century-long rivalry between Clemson and USC may one day come to an end!

Something must be done! The law must guarantee that Clemson and USC will play their annual games until the end of time! Let's hear it for Clemson and USC football!

But rather than throw out more harrowing numbers and statistics, I have asked Ms. Dingle to share a first-hand account of what it really means to grow up poor in a rich country -- and why she sees early education as key to breaking the cycle of poverty. After all, the born-and-bred Clarendon County resident is speaking from personal experience.

A note from Rosa Dingle, Ed.S
Principal, St. Paul Elementary School, Summerton, S.C.

Aside from the addition of computers and email, not much else has improved in Clarendon County schools since my days as a student here. Poverty is just as prevalent today as it was when I was growing up. Over the past several years, one business after another has closed down, leaving none to fuel our school district with tax revenue or employ local residents.

Today, a strip of mostly boarded-up shops lines the picturesque downtown of Summerton, where I now work as the principal of St. Paul Elementary School. The biggest blow to the area's economy came in September 2010 with the shutdown of Summerton's Federal Mogul Plant, a global automotive supplier that, during its heyday, employed 800 workers in a town of just over 1,000 residents.

With so many parents losing their jobs, the majority of students in my school--many from single-parent households--qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. One of the parents recently told me that she was heating her home using the oven because there was no heat in the house. And stories of students whose parents can't afford to buy them winter clothes and shoes (such as the boy I told Carolyn about) are all too common.

If I were cynical, Ms. Dingle, I'd tell you to wait until these children are old enough to play football for Clemson and USC -- woo hoo! -- and then, regardless of their impoverished background, boosters -- and maybe even South Carolina's lawmakers -- will move heaven and earth to see that they have plenty of warm clothes to wear, so long as they're able to get that ball through in the endzone and through the uprights.

But I'm not cynical.

And I don't see our lawmakers moving to change things any time soon.

If our children have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, or how to keep warm, their school work will inevitably suffer. Many parents of the students in my school can barely afford life's basic necessities, let alone books. As a result, too many children at St. Paul Elementary read two to three years below their grade level. Having worked at a high school for several years, I know what it's like for students to be so far behind, they want to give up.

That's why, at the elementary school level, I feel personally responsible to make sure each student is prepared for middle school and beyond.

Which is way more than our legislators feel. Sometime when you're in Columbia on a Tuesday or Wednesday evening, find out where that evening's legislative reception is being held -- there's usually one every Tuesday and Wednesday night, and they're not difficult to slip into -- and you can ask a dozen or two of them yourself how much they feel responsible for the preparation of their poorest constituents' children.

After a few blank stares and uncomfortable grins from them, you may get the sense that not many of our elected leaders share your commitment to children. Other people's children, that is.

It is imperative that we give every child, every chance, every day an opportunity to succeed. In spite of the limited resources and personnel, our students come to school with their heads held high, smiling and willing to learn. I even catch some of them reading books as they are walking to class.

If we want to break the cycle of poverty, we need to ensure that our children excel academically. Our vision for St. Paul Elementary School is to establish and maintain high expectations for all--no exceptions! I often tell my students my personal story, which resonates with many of them. I didn't know who my father was until I was 18 years old. Raised by my grandmother right here in Clarendon County, I faced many of the same challenges. Education was the way out of poverty for me. And it can -- and should -- be for my students, too.

Thank you, Ms. Dingle.

Congratulations to young scholars in Beaufort

Here's a little good news, thanks to the fine public school educators in Beaufort County.

Two Beaufort County School District students have been named finalists in the National Achievement Scholarship Program, an academic competition established in 1964 by the National Merit Scholarship Corporation to recognize outstanding black scholars.

Bluffton High School’s Tibra Wheeler and Hilton Head Island High School’s Adrian Austin rank near the top of their high school classes in academics and leadership.

“Being named a finalist in this rigorous competition is a tremendous honor,” said Superintendent Valerie Truesdale. “It signifies that Tibra and Adrian are among the very best students in our country, and we couldn’t be prouder of their achievements.”

What it's all about. Congratulations to Tibra and Adrian, and to their instructors. Great work.

Charleston superintendent advocates for teacher pay raises

Let's read this silently once:

"If we do not put this out as our highest priority, we can have the greatest programs in the world, and we're going to lose our talent," McGinley said. "We're already losing talent because they can't afford to live in the county."

Now let's read it again aloud together:

"If we do not put this out as our highest priority, we can have the greatest programs in the world, and we're going to lose our talent," McGinley said. "We're already losing talent because they can't afford to live in the county."

This, folks, is the statement of an intelligent person.

In this case, it happens to be Charleston County Public Schools Superintendent Nancy McGinley, who told the Charleston Post and Courier that her number-one priority for next year's school budget will be

finding a way to give teachers the pay she said they deserve but haven't received the last few years. Teachers are key to achieving the district's academic goals, but they haven't had a cost-of-living adjustment in three years or a step increase for additional experience in two years, she said.

Has YOUR superintendent said words to this effect lately?

Close?

Remotely similar?

Let's look at it again and let it soak in. Imagine that, instead of the words "McGinley said," you insert the name of your own superintendent.

"If we do not put this out as our highest priority, we can have the greatest programs in the world, and we're going to lose our talent," YOUR SUPERINTENDENT HERE said. "We're already losing talent because they can't afford to live in the county."

How did that feel?

Without knowing much else about Superintendent McGinley, I know this: She recognizes that the education professionals who serve children in her district are her front line, her offense and her defense, her district's best hope for improving student achievement. Students don't learn in a district office; they learn in schools and classrooms.

A quick Google search reveals one more important thing about McGinley: She's a 2002 graduate of the Broad Superintendents Academy. Broad's management philosophy is well-known, and what McGinley has said publicly doesn't align with the Broad philosophy. So, based upon her comments to the Post & Courier, I must draw some conclusions. Is it possible that McGinley has been in leadership roles long enough now -- 10 years -- that she's grown beyond the 10-month Broad indoctrination? Has she seen the fallacy of the management philosophy undergirding the Broad system?

I'm hopeful of it, given what else she told the Post & Courier this week:

She'd like to give all other district staff, including administrators and hourly workers, a cost-of-living increase, and the total cost for the districtwide pay boost would be $12.2 million.

That's a bargain. A steal.

McGinley made her pitch to the school board during a workshop. District officials presented more than $30 million in new or expanded initiatives they'd like to fund next year; the district's total operating budget this year is $334.3 million.

They talked little about from where the money for these efforts would come, and McGinley said she understands the district doesn't have "all the money in the world."

It's a good thing Charleston educators don't need all the money in the world; they only need an extra $12.2 million. That's doable. Assess an extra quarter-percent of property tax on homes valued at more than a million dollars in Charleston County, and $12.2 million will materialize quicker than Civil War re-enactors at a Secession Ball.

Other top priorities for next year include expanding the district's literacy academies and extending the school year for its lowest-performing schools.

Bread-and-butter issues, one and all.

There are a number of great superintendents across South Carolina, and all they need to kick-start a movement is to gain critical momentum with a proposal like McGinley's. Do us all a favor, and send your superintendent the link to this post.

Or, print this one out and ship it through the pony express to your superintendent's office with this bit highlighted:

"If we do not put this out as our highest priority, we can have the greatest programs in the world, and we're going to lose our talent," McGinley said. "We're already losing talent because they can't afford to live in the county."

Organize, y'all, organize.

Lawmakers concede: No more important issues to discuss

Education. Unemployment. Transportation. Crime. Poverty. Domestic violence.

All these weighty matters must have been resolved while we weren't watching, because lawmakers have turned their attention to a matter that, before now, probably ranked lower than 3,000th on the list of "most important things that lawmakers should spend time, breath and taxpayer dollars to consider":

USC and Clemson will be required – by state law – to continue their annual football matchup in perpetuity if one lawmaker has his way.

State Rep. Nathan Ballentine, R-Lexington, has introduced a proposal, to be considered by a panel of House members Wednesday, to require the two teams to continue their annual face-off, college football’s second-longest consecutively played rivalry in the nation. The teams have met 103 consecutive years.

Yes, South Carolina's lawmakers are more interested in a football game than in addressing the most pressing issues facing South Carolinians.

The ancient Romans called this panem et circenses -- bread and circuses -- and the term actually has a meaning in political science:

In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion, distraction, and/or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace. The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the common man (l'homme moyen sensuel).

In modern usage, the phrase has also become an adjective to describe a populace that no longer values civic virtues and the public life.

Yes, we're using entertainment to distract attention from real problems.

Beginning with Augustus Caesar, the city of Rome provided bread, oil and wine to its urban population. What this meant, is that almost 250,000 inhabitants of Rome consumed about 6 million sacks of grain per year, free. Rome provided citizens with food -- it also provided them with entertainment. Of the poor, the poet Juvenal could write:

with no vote to sell, their motto is "couldn't care less,"
Time was when their plebiscite elected generals,
heads of state, commanders of legions:
but now they've pulled in their horns,
there's only two things than concern them: BREAD and CIRCUSES.


For instance, at the Venatio, animals were led into an amphitheater where heavily armed men fought and killed them. This was a popular pastime which was provided to the urban poor and aristocracy by the benevolence of the emperor. These events were held in a structure called the Circus Maximus which was built during the second century B.C. between the Capitoline and Aventine Hills in Rome. After being destroyed by fire, it was reconstructed in A.D. 200 and had a capacity for 250,000 spectators. Races were held there until 549.

The Romans were fascinated with wild animals -- they like looking at them, seeing them perform tricks, or watching them being hunted and killed. Wolves, bears, bores, deer, and goats were indigenous to Rome and other animals were brought to Rome by imperial conquest. Elephants, ostriches, leopards and lions were imported in the first century B.C., followed by hippopotamus, rhinoceros, camels and giraffes. There were no zoos in Rome and most animals were privately owned as status symbols. Monkeys were dressed as soldiers and rode atop goats harnessed to a small chariot. The elephant was the most popular show animal and was initially used to transport wealthy men and women to dinner. However, animals were not only used for show but for what we can only call blood sports.

Panem et circenses.