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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Will, have you go the facts on that one?

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.

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.

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.