Bad News … Three Months Late
Seventy-seven additional S.C. schools have dropped to “unsatisfactory” or “below average” status according to South Carolina’s annual school report cards, which were finally released today … more than three months late.
Due in mid-November, the report cards were delayed due to a “major glitch” by a testing company, but state education officials didn’t notice the problem until the day before the report cards were supposed to be mailed out to parents last fall.
A follow-up deadline of late January was also missed.
You can read more about the tardy educrat geniuses by clicking here, but the real story is how these report cards showcase South Carolina’s growing achievement gap.
Basically, there were modest gains at predominately white schools in good neighborhoods, while hundreds of school serving mostly minority populations in low-income areas of the state fell further behind.
State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex blamed the lackluster report card results on “poverty,” a word which showed up in the official Department of Education press release at least nine times.
Rex also claimed that the poor showing was due to state budget cuts, despite the fact that local school districts have stashed away at least $700 million in reserve funds.
Interestingly enough, from 2004-07 (a period which saw public schools receive an additional $900 million in state funds), South Carolina’s percentage of “unsatisfactory” schools jumped from 2.6% to 14.9%, while the number of “below average” schools increased from 14.6% to 26.1%.
Currently, 24.5% of our schools are below average, while 16.1% are “unsatisfactory.”
Parents will receive the report cars in the mail next week, although obviously they’re pretty much worthless at this point – even moreso seeing as most parents would be unable to make a choice for their child even if they wanted to.
Comments
By Scott on February 20th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Charleston county is celebrating the fact that Burke High School improved to below average! I have never seen such a ridiculous celebration in the Post and Courier for such an accomplishment! I mean they are now just below average! Wow, way to go!
By Randy on February 20th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
I hope that Jim Rex is ready to give out a lot of kisses to parents because he just fucked their kids’ future.
By Todd on February 20th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Take all those consultants and put them in the classrooms. It has been shown over and over and over that less pupils per teacher is the best method to assist students that are not progressing as they should and as they are capable. Check out the article in The State’s sports section today about Glenforest School. Great place. Student/teacher ratio is less than 9 to 1. All those masses of people wandering around the Rutledge Building should get into a classroom and actually help students. Quit just writing reports that take up shelf space. Have a happy day.
By Nope on February 20th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Yeah, we have high standards. Our kids don’t meet them at very high levels. Neither would kids from any other state.
Maybe you missed this, since you didn’t report it on your site (or maybe you just don’t ever report anything not in line with your ideology). The data’s from the Fordham Foundation, but this is from the Aiken Standard’s report yesterday:
“For several years, national surveys of the No Child Left Behind Act and its Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) lists have shown that South Carolina’s high proficiency standards have put the state at a public relations disadvantage compared to most other states.
Now, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute has released a new study that demonstrates that situation yet again, indicating schools meet or don’t meet AYP requirements partially based on inconsistent and arcane state rules and a federal system that condones that situation. The Institute and the Kingsbury Center at Northwest Evaluation Association analyzed the performance of 18 elementary and 18 middle schools, all of them real. They then “moved” those schools to 28 states, projecting which schools would make AYP under the different NCLB requirements of each state.
The results were striking: 17 schools would make AYP in Wisconsin and 15 in Arizona. Just three would make AYP in South Carolina, which promotes a much greater standard for proficiency than other states.
Under the scenario created in the study, the schools would have been considered “needs improvement” facilities in South Carolina, but not in the other states.
By Nope on February 20th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
So Will, I know this is hard, but try to understand. According to No Child Left Behind, every state gets to determine for itself what “proficient” means. In South Carolina, we’ve decided it means “very well prepared” for the next grade (like, a high B average). In Wisconsin and Arizona, they’ve decided it means “minimally prepared” for the next grade (a C or less) — the equivalent of “basic” on South Carolina’s tests. They don’t have a high bar to cross so they meet AYP tests for “proficiency.” We don’t.
Same for state accountability measures: we’re going against a very high goal. It’s great that we want to meet it and that we’re measuring whether or not we do. We’re not likely to do it in this generation.
You should STOP talking about education because you have no idea what you’re saying, and it diminishes you.
By fitsnews on February 20th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Moron,
These numbers were put out by the State Department of Education.
If you don’t like them, call Superintendent Rex and tell him to quit doing such a crappy job.
-FITS
By FWFIV on February 20th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Will-
(re-comment to Moron above)
Your answer to this is misguided. The poster was letting you know where HIS information came from, not disputing the source of YOUR study. If you are this quick to take offense maybe you realize your position is a bit shaky.
By I'm not a moron on February 20th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
FITS …
The State Department didn’t create the standards. Our General Assembly created the Education Oversight Committee who sets these standards which predate No Child Left Behind. No one could then go back an say let’s rethink this because of morons like you and SCRG who would say the standards were being lowered.
South Carolina’s schools (and students) would look great if they used Wisconsin standards.
By fitsnews on February 20th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
“I’m not a moron,”
You are a moron.
The SDE provides all of the data to the EOC, and as we all know the SDE has a history of moving the goalposts.
According to the Feds, only one in every five SC schools is meeting adequate yearly progress benchmarks.
South Carolina has also redefined what constitutes proficient so many times we might as well just pass everybody and be done with it.
“Tough standards” sounds good, but when graduation rates and SAT scores are what they are, it’s “tough” to take those standards seriously.
-FITS
P.S. – Keep coming back for more, though. Please.
By baker on February 20th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Will,
Have we in fact changed the meaning of “proficient” yet? I thought that was on tap but that since the new EOC report would be based on last year’s PACT tests, we’d still talking about the previous “proficient” — which, as pointed out, is a tougher standard than the majority of states.
Of course, your points about SAT scores and grad. rates are understood…I haven’t heard a single education official or teacher or whoever else say “we’ve arrived.” The debate centers around the issue of reasonable progress. Many in system defend the progress that’s being made; critics say it’s not enough; lots of people who aren’t clearly in either of the SCRG/FITS/Rich vs. public education camps express varying degrees of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
People who’s kids go to “good” schools are generally happy. A surprising number of people, I think, whose children are in the “under-achieving” schools express high regard for the principals and teachers at those schools. Again, there are critics and unhappy parents, as well.
By baker on February 20th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Seriously, I haven’t been following it down to the last deal….does the current EOC “report card” report apply the old “proficient” rating? Or have we changed the standard already?
Will, have you go the facts on that one?
By BIN News Editorial Staff on February 20th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
sic(k) willie and Howie’s other Voucher Clowns are not morons.
But they act that way with their same tired old voucher scam rhetoric.
They can’t help it. Voucher scam money blinds them to the truth.
We all know the truth. The real problems facing education in SC are poverty, the latent racism that the voucher scam feeds and the shameful “minimally adequate” standard the Legislature has allowed to fester for so long.
Everyone, we mean everyone, knows that vouchers are a scam. And that scam has been soundly rejected over and over and over by voters and the Legislature.
Vouchers are dead. As dead as sic(k) willie’s chances of a pardon.
By Nope on February 21st, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Baker: This year’s report cards ARE based on PACT, and as far as I’m aware, cut scores for proficiency won’t change until the new test takes effect.
Will, I’ll say it again: you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. The SDE has never “moved the goalpost” or “redefined what constitutes proficient.” South Carolina’s proficiency standards have always been, and remain, among the most rigorous in the nation, consistently ranking first or second. The pressure has always been on to change them, to avoid federal sanctions and shut the mouths of people like you, but the Department resisted. And South Carolina has been nationally recognized for doing that.
You’ve memorized SCRG’s favorite slur, that only one in five schools meet adequate yearly progress under No Child Left Behind. It’s true. That’s because in South Carolina, proficient means proficient, and it’s hard to get to, while in other states proficient means nothing. Too bad we can’t move our schools to Texas, Wisconsin, or Arizona, where every single one would meet AYP — without changing a single thing.
I think you’re a bright person, but your understanding of education issues is embarrassing. Stop repeating the ignorant knee-jerk propaganda of the Voice for School Choice and go study. You might actually have something useful to contribute.
By Nope on February 21st, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Baker: I’d be interested in hearing your views about why SAT scores in South Carolina lag so badly.
Here’s my puzzlement: According to NAEP, South Carolina students perform almost at the national average in both reading and math. Yet on the SAT, even if you control for variables like income, course-taking patterns, and percentage of students taking the test, we score near the bottom.
And it’s not just public schools — it’s private schools too. If you look at the College Board data, SAT scores among independent school students in South Carolina rank 50th out of 51 states and the District of Columbia, exceeding only Alaska. Religious schools rank 45th out of 51.
I’ve worked in education for many years, and I don’t get it. I wonder if you have any insight.
By Sollicitus Civis on February 22nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
We can start improving education by abolishing the Education Oversight Committee. Since the passage of the Education Accountability Act of 1998 (forced on this state by the Republican legislature, State Superintendent of Education Barbara Neilsen (R), and Governor David Beasely (R)) the EOC has been appropriated nearly $16 million dollars and all it has accomplished is the creation of an adversarial relationship between the public and the schools. A system of accountability was created that makes it impossible to succeed. Remember Lucy and Ethel in the chocolate factory? As the speed of the conveyor belt increased, they were unable to keep up. Raising the bar every year is the educational equivalent of the conveyor belt. If the “I Love Lucy” reference escapes you, see the “Aiken Standard” editorial with sports references -http://www.aikenstandard.com/Editorial/0222-editorial-on-report-cards.
The EOC has a staff of educators who are far removed from the classroom and non-educators who do not support public education. Data is cherry-picked and provided to the governor and the legislature which support an agenda of public school destruction.
Nope is correct when he says the SDE does not move the goalposts or the cut scores. That is done by the EOC. After students take the tests, the numbers are reported by the SDE to the EOC. The EOC then sets the cut scores. Each year these cut scores increase. Again, the EOC was created to establish an accountability system that schools achievement would decline over time so that people like Will can shake their finger and say “see there, our schools are failing because teachers are dumb and if we could only provide competition, things will naturally get better.” If this had ever worked, schools would be set up that way historically; however, no one ever made a profit by running a school, so their were no education robber barons among the millionaires of this country at the end of the 19th century.
By baker on February 23rd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Nope — I don’t think there are many clear-cut answers, and you probably know more about it than I do. I’ve worked in public schools in SC, but it’s been a while ago.
A few things come to mind, though:
(1) We need to liberalize teacher certification. I think we’re taking steps to do that. But when there are talented people who want to teach, it should be as easy as possible to get into the classroom. Now, what does “easy as possible mean”? I’m not sure that I think we should put people into public school classrooms with no hands-on experience whatsoever, but I do think the process should be streamlined to a great degree. Seems to me that there are college juniors and seniors, for instance, in very good colleges who’d be interested in teaching for a few years after graduation, or maybe as a long-term career….but it’s too late to get certified (for all but extreme needs subjects, etc.) as an undergrad, and they don’t want to spend two years in graduated school for a job that doesn’t pay very well. We need to provide incentive and encouragement — and a better process — to get these people into teaching.
(2) We need some creativity in terms of hiring coaches at the high school level. With large athletics programs — which are perfectly appropriate, in my opinion — our schools need a lot of coaches. That’s fine. But what it means is that a ton of teaching slots are reserved for coaches. And that often means that schools are trying to fill a short-term need rather than a long-term one: “Uh-oh, our girls soccer coach moved on in May, so we’ve got to give that English teaching position to someone who can coach girls soccer.” That’s obviously backward, but it’s somewhat understandable since someone’s got to coach that team. It’s also not to say that all coaches are bad teachers — not by a longshot. But somehow the priority for hiring teachers should be their ability to TEACH, not coach. It would take more money, in all probability, to hire coaches who only coach. But maybe there are some sort of creative approaches to fill coaching needs but still place the main hiring focus on top-notch classroom teaching.
(3) I think it’s important to get kids clued in to career and college interests early on….at least by middle school. I’m not sure people in our country are ready to take on the European model of sending students at age 14 into either a professional or college-bound track vs. a vocational track. But we need to make exposure and opportunities glaringly evident to students starting around that age.
I think a lot of kids do OK in school through elementary and early middle grades, but they lack much of clue about post-graduation opportunities. So many kids in poverty grow up not seeing grown-ups in their lives with a college education or with steady professional careers. So their expectations and understanding of things are out of whack, and this, I think, leads to a disconnect with school for many. In my opinion, those students need pretty intense guidance, as well as opportunities in hands-on courses, apprenticeships, vocational education, etc. — again, starting at a fairly young age.
(4) I’m a big fan of after-school programs. For kids who leave school and go home to neighborhoods that are dangerous, homes where no one is there to help with homework, homes/neighborhoods where there isn’t much to do — I think those youngsters can really benefit from Boys and Girls Clubs and such organizations. It’s great for the programs to have academic components, of course. And they should offer some sort of career awareness, team experiences, arts, or some combination. But if almost nothing else, at least it should mean more contact hours with caring adults in a safe and fun environment. And at least it’s supervision so kids aren’t getting into trouble, getting pregnant, etc.
As one principal told me: We’re providing things that most kids get at home after school — a snack, some homework help, recreation, activities, encouragement. These are things children need, and if they aren’t available at home, we’re here to provide it.
These programs generally require funding from communities. I’m not sure I think it should all come from the school system. But maybe there’s a proper combination of public and private support to make it happen. In any case, I think positive after-school opportunities can make a real difference.