By Bob McAlister
Now I know how Oscar Shindler might have felt as he befriended the Nazis even as he worked for the greater good of saving the lives of Jews.
I am posting on a blog that has called my friends and me every bad name under heaven (RINO being one of the most-used nouns).
But I am doing it for the greater good of putting public education in perspective, and adding some truth to an issue that has evoked lies.
Unfortunately, this blog is the widest read blog in South Carolina. If I can reach thousands of boobs googling for boobies and they accidentally happen upon some useful information, then perhaps God will forgive me.
And if comparing Sic Willie to Nazis offends anyone, my apologies to the Nazis.
Here is the useful information: The S. C. constitution does not impose “minimally adequate” educational standards on public schools, and the legislature has never attempted to write such standards into the constitution.
This is the full text of the constitution as it relates to education:
The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools open to all children in the state and shall establish, organize and support such other public institutions of learning as may be desirable.
That’s it, folks; there ain’t no more. Not only does the constitution not contain the words “minimally adequate,” it does not suggest it.
So how has a cottage industry formed around feigned or real indignation over a concept that does not exist in the constitution?
Because the S. C. Supreme Court declared it so, just as the U. S. Supreme Court discovered a woman’s right to privacy in 1973 that had escaped 150 years of judicial notice.
The 1999 vote was 4-1 in favor of rewriting the constitution’s education clause.
Chief Justice Ernest Finney wrote it. Justices Toal, Waller and Burnett concurred.
The majority even defined what a “minimally adequate” education looks like, including “fundamental knowledge of economic, social and political systems, and of history and governmental processes.”
Nothing in the constitution remotely suggests that.
The 1999 ruling that created “minimally adequate” was a breathtaking hijacking of the state constitution.
The only dissent came from Justice A. J. Moore, who panned the ruling with some common sense interpretation of a simple paragraph.
“(The constitution) contains no directive regarding the quality or adequacy of the education that must be provided,” Moore wrote. “Since this clause nor any other provision restricts the legislature’s power to control the quality of public education, we may not impose judicial limits on that power by adding education requirements not found in the constitution. It is for the general assembly, and not this court, to determine whether statewide standards of adequacy in education should be set and what, if any, those standards should be.”
But the court majority prevailed, and started a circus that continues to this day.
Special interest groups purporting to represent parents and children draw attention to themselves by attacking the legislature for constitutionally mandating such a low threshold for public educational standards – when in fact the legislature has not done so.
So why haven’t lawmakers stood up for themselves and corrected the record?
Probable answer? Most don’t know what the constitution says about education.
Ask any legislator about this -and I have done it – and they’ll swear the words “minimally adequate” are in the constitution. Same for the media.
It’s called ignorance.
I can find no record of legislators calling out the justices who participated in this dreadful decision. Supreme Court justices have to be reappointed, and one would think that conservative legislators would publicly rip justices who are up for reappointment, if not deny them another term.
So South Carolina is now nationally known as the state that constitutionally requires nothing more than “minimally adequate” standards for its public school system, and a statewide petition drive is underway to change the constitution and save our children.
It has given credibility and renewed purpose to the status quo that insists that educational Nirvana is just another billion dollars away.
The Supreme Court’s rewriting of the constitution made it all possible, which likely was the goal all along.
The author is president of McAlister Communications and former Chief of Staff to S.C. Gov. Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
By Randy February 28, 2009 at 4:05 pm
The second person I would like to toss from the conservative movement, after Warren Tompkins, is Bob McAllister. His “I am always right and you are wrong, and I know this because God tells me you are an idiot” routine is very tired, and runs off more conservatives Christians than it attracts.
Why don’t these old windbags die or retire or get bored with being loud mouth know-it alls and just leave the scene. In 20 years, McCain, McAllister, McMaster, Graham, etc will all be still here in the Palmetto State milking it for all it has.
The one thinking you can count on it they all do very well by playing the system. SC may suck, but our dear leaders are living large. Very large indeed.
By BIN News Editorial Staff February 28, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Thoughful!Insightful!Cr@p!
The simple fact is the SC Supreme Court read the Constitution and interpreted it to provide for a “minimally adequate” public education for SC children. The Court did its job very well.
It interpreted the Legislature’s intent at the time.
The current Legislature has reinforced that by spending millions (plural) of tax dollars fighting to uphold the shameful “minimally adequate” standard.
Yes, Mr. McAlister. SC is nationally known. You must have seen the little girl sitting with the First Lady the other night. Makes you proud, doesn’t it?
You, sic(k) willie and Howie’s other voucher clowns should be ashamed.
All you want is a voucher scam’s.
But vouchers are dead in SC.
BIN News Editorial Staff
Flair and Balanced
http://www.goodbyeminimallyadequate.com/
By huh? February 28, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Jim Rex is a doofus. He’s been telling everybody that the Constitution needs to be changed.
By Laurin Manning February 28, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Mr. McAlister is correct that the “minimally adequate” standard was articulated by the SC Supreme Court and not by the legislature or in the state constitution. I think “breathtaking hijacking” of the constitution is a bit silly, though.
The fact that many of our schools statewide are in poor shape is indisputable, and that’s the source of the outrage — not the court’s particular wording. If our schools statewide were awesome, such a standard articulated by the court or the legislature or the constitution or whomever wouldn’t concern folks at all.
Also – as a side note – the constitutional right to privacy was first articulated by the US Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (concerning married couples’ access to contraception) in 1965, not in Roe v. Wade in 1973.
By um,no February 28, 2009 at 4:35 pm
The fun thing about blogs is that people totally unqualified to offer their opinion on stuff feel weirdly at liberty to reveal their ignorance. This post is a case in point.
A few points to consider:
1. The issue in the Abbeville County decision was whether the SC Education Clause contained a “qualitative component.” Your attempt to characterize this decision’s finding such a component as hugely overreaching fails to appreciate what courts do. Other states’ courts have found qualitative elements in similar clauses. See Opinion of the Justices, 624 So.2d 107 (Ala.1993) (holding qualitative standard created by clause “The Legislature shall establish, organize, and maintain a liberal system of public schools throughout the state for the benefit of the children thereof….”); R.E.F.I.T. v. Cuomo, 86 N.Y.2d 279, 631 N.Y.S.2d 551, 655 N.E.2d 647 (1995) (“The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools” requires that each student receive a sound basic education); Fair School Fin. Council of Oklahoma v. State, 746 P.2d 1135 (Ok.1987) (constitutional provisions requiring the “establishment and maintenance of a system of free public schools” means a basic adequate education); Tennessee Small School Sys. v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139 (1993) (holding constitutional clause “The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance, support and eligibility standards of a system of free public schools” embraces a qualitative component).
The “minimal” standard for public education is not just some judicial fiat as you suggest. By the time of the 1993 Abbeville County decision, the Education Finance Act had been law for 16 years. It provides in relevant part: “Declaration of legislative purpose. It is the purpose of the General Assembly in this chapter: (1) To guarantee to each student in the public schools of South Carolina the availability of at least minimum educational programs . . .” 59-20-30.
Although the constitutional analysis isn’t dependent on the legislation, it’s misleading to suggest this is the judicial branch run amok. The Court cited the statute in the opinion.
3. We have courts so that political hacks, even in one-party states, can’t
overwhelm proper legal analysis with their political hackery. Your call to punish judges for their decisions proves why this is a valuable thing.
By Laurin Manning February 28, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Huh?,
The SC Supreme Court has interpreted the state constitution as providing for at least a “minimally adequate” education, so Rex is correct. A constitutional amendment would be the appropriate means of changing the minimally adequate standard that the Court has ruled is an implied constitutional right in the state.
By fitsnews February 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Laurin-
You’ve been hanging around “The One” too long, babe.
-FITS
By Catherine February 28, 2009 at 5:21 pm
The only thing we need to improve education is to get rid of the current leadership, the current way schools promote bad teachers into worse administrators, and receive cover from their own legislative delegations.
The Dillon district with that nice girl is a perfect example — God knows half the local “leadership” should be in jail for what they’ve taken from taxpayers. And, by the way FITS, an example of where your beloved school choice would have no effect.
Please, can we please get past labels and history to make a difference? As a liberal Dem I don’t mind paying taxes, but I sure the heck mind the complete lack of accountability and transparency in our government.
By Tightwad Squad February 28, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Great opinion piece!
So — Our educational squander fest is a result of the SC Supreme Court’s meddling. It all makes perfect sense now.
Excellent artwork too, Sic. I hope it will inspire all of us to use our pencils until they are worn down to a nub.
…BIN’s early arrival today reminds me of another pencil phrase…
By James the Foot Soldier February 28, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Mr. McAlister – You lost me at “now I know how Oscar Schindler must have felt…”
And then you blah blah blah through hundreds of words to self-righteously proclaim how a Supreme Court ruling got it all wrong and legislators are ignornant (stating the obvious there)??
You profess the rest of the nation knows how poor the quality of a South Carolina education is, a point the students in their 5th year of German in Lex-Rich $5 would refute. When I disclose what my property taxes are to friends across the nation I laugh when I hear how much they’re spending on their “maximumly adequate” edcuation costs.
To the poor saps in Dillon – stuff your belongings in the trunk of your Cadillac and MOVE – improving your child’s education is as simple as that.
Your humble servant,
jtfs
By Tired of the good ole boys February 28, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Like him or hate him (and I don’t do either) McAllister’s piece is well-written…and correct. The whole effort to change the Constitution is just an effort to force taxpayers to throw more money at public education in South Carolina. But the fact is that our per student spending is 26th in the country when compared to other states – pretty impressive for a relatively poor state that is 45th in terms of personal incomes.
We have committed billions of new money to K-12 education in the past 20 years and have little to show for it other than a bloated education department filled with overpaid bureaucrats. Changing the Constitution in a way that requires us to send more of our public monies on K-12 won’t help our kids – it will help the educrats.
Catherine makes a good point. Our state did a $1 billion bond bill for school buildings in 2000. (The interest on that costs our K-12 system around $50 million a year). If the educrats that have spent that money plus the billions they get annually on other things yet neglected the facilities in the “corridor of shame,†is the solution to give them more money?
Or clean house because they have let down another generation of our children while enriching their own pockets on bloated salaries and a retirement system we in the private sector can’t afford for them or ourselves
By What's his Point? February 28, 2009 at 10:03 pm
McAlister does not make any sense. The Constitution says the legislature should provide support for free public schools.
On this important issue, if something is worth doing, it is worth doing well. We all know our public schools suck and the issue should not be whether the court has to force our legislature to provide a basic education.
McAlister offers no suggestions as to how to improve public education. He comes across like a plantation owner refusing to provide the minimum nutrition necessary to keep his slaves alive.
By Scott February 28, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Charleston County has just finished celebrating the fact that Burke High School has now
achieved the status of “Below Average”! WOW, way to go guys! See the Post and Courier
article at http://www.charleston.net.
By Todd February 28, 2009 at 10:37 pm
I attended tonight a public school lower state semi-final boys AA basketball game between
two Corridor of Shame schools – though the game was held at the palatial “neutral” court
at Dreher High School in Columbia. It was a great game, great kids, great parents, fans
and students. The advantage of these small towns these days is that the races get along –
because they have to. They were all – on both sides – in awe of Dreher’s palace. The gym
with walking track upstairs, ticket booth, courtyard outside of their magnificent “lunch
room”, landscaped parking lot next to their college level baseball field. I didn’t tell
my hometown friends that the administration in Richland school district 1 is 16 deep with
most having their jobs due to who they know on the school board. The consultants have
consultants who advise the administrators who…… PUT THEM IN THE CLASSROOM!!!!
By BIN News Editorial Staff February 28, 2009 at 10:54 pm
James Foot Fungus seems to think the solution in Dillon is for everyone with kids in
school to move. Great idea. How about to your neighborhood, Fungus?
How would you like all those “Cadillacs” parked on your street?
Catherine, please. You wrote this cr@p:
“The only thing we need to improve education is to get rid of the current leadership, the
current way schools promote bad teachers into worse administrators and receive cover from
their own legislative delegations.”
Catherine, you need to tighten your chinstrap and practice your PLF’s in sand. Sounds
like you’ve been landing too hard too often with a loose helmet.
What’s the Point makes a good point. Thanks for making sense.
BIN News Editorial Staff
Flair and Balanced
http://www.goodbyeminimallyadequate.com/
By Beeza March 1, 2009 at 11:44 am
Ok great guys. Now we know who is to blame…SO WHAT? ..Now can we just do what needs to be done to improve the quality of public education in South Carolina? Until we lift up the least common denominator, there will always be a ceiling on what any of us can achieve. I hate paying taxes but since we have to, let’s educate our children, engage them, give them tools to succeed and stop this cycle of poverty. There is no benefit to the plantation mentality of our state leaders.
By huh? March 1, 2009 at 11:56 am
I have supported public education with about all I can afford. Throwing good money after bad, is like investing in Real Estate or the stock market.
Oh, crap. I did that too.
By CLEMSON09 March 1, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Wow! I’m surprised that this website is not blaming Clemson University for the failures of the SC education system!
SURELY Clemson has SOMETHING to do with it…
By James the Foot Soldier March 1, 2009 at 3:15 pm
BIN – there are dozens of homes in my neighborhood for sale. Combine that with all the stimulus money gushing like a turgid stool from the donkey’s ass and all of a sudden you have a solution.
And I did it in a thousand less words than McAlister’s rant.
Take that 26th in the nation spending and apply a wage factor (South Carolinian’s wages are about 80% of the nation’s average) and we vault into the top ten in education spending in the nation.
It’s not the plantation mentality of the state’s leaders – it’s the plantation mentality of many in the state waiting for their “Massa” to feed them, to house, them, and to educate them.
So BIN – good luck with your “Mo’ Money” solution – that pig won’t pretty up no matter how much lipstick you slap on her.
By Randy March 1, 2009 at 6:46 pm
McAlister, “Minimally Adequate”, I am not surprised.
By Stinkbait March 1, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Listen up. You can all stand in a circle & point fingers at each other, the SC Constitution, educrats, judges, legislators, Obama, McAlister, et al., but the solution here rests squarely on the shoulders of one group that none of the above have ever had the guts to acknowledge. It’s PARENTS — or the absence of them. Until & unless parents begin to hold themselves & their children accountable & demand a higher level of self-discipline & academic performance, there’s little any amount of money or system reform can do to improve our schools. Regardless of the circumstances that got them there, it isn’t enough for parents to expect schools to teach manners, acceptable dress, study habits, self-sufficiency, reasonable curfews, pride in academic accomplishment & all the other things that parents should have begun before their child enters the 1st grade. Given the frightening percentage of black & white children having children without benefit of anything that remotely resembles wedlock, you can go to the bank on one thing. The Crips & Bloods will continue to step up, provide enthusiastic leadership — & instill their values in the grade schoolers who will assuredly become seasoned criminals & absentee parents all too soon — “and the beat goes on”.
By Rafe Hollister March 1, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Bob, I am mystified that you chose to post your remarks on this site but understand your reasoning. Will, the principal responsibility for construction and upkeep of public school buildings is a DISTRICT responsibility. Dillon County’s districts have apparently neglected this for decades. Parents(voters) have been unwilling to provide the necessary capital or bonding approval. At the same time, Dillon County’s three high schools(Dillon, Latta, Lake View) have enjoyed a number of State championships in several sports——-priorities???
By mackone March 1, 2009 at 7:36 pm
I had an interesting survey call this past week that addressed many of the issues covered in this blog and it comes down to one basic issue. The ones in charge don’t seem to know whether to wind their ass or scratch their watch.
There comes a time when every instituion or government entitly must be held accountable for their actions. This has not been done. We have gone willy nilly along and allowed a group of individuals to feather their own nest at the expense of our most valuable asset; our children.
If a teacher or a Administrator is incompetent. Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord spilt ya. If we are going to be good at anything, the individuals running the programs need to be committed to the overall success of the program and not personal accomplishments.
I am always disturbed when I see, hear and read of people trying to give a legitimate explanation of the issue only to be belittle and shown little respect for trying to give a valuable insight.
Money is not the problem. But, then, neither is as someone indicated palatial gyms and school campuses that many small colleges would die for. It is not the facilities, it is the people inside that make for a successful school. We are trying to do too much in the schools to be successful.
I did not vote for the current President, but he is my President, and I intend to defend his right to govern. He recently was berated for saying that he wanted free college education. That is not what I read. He stated that he wanted all young people to have to opportunity to attend school beyond the high school level. Can anyone say, Technical College, Associates Degree, Trade Skills. As much as I would like to think that all students are college material, it just isn’t practical. We need to provide a good basic education for every child in our state. I did not mean ok, but good enough that they can succeed at the level they are each capable of.
No Child Left Behind, School to work and all these phrases are just so much talk. Take the money out of the hands of the bureaucrats and put it in the classrooms. Now before too many teachers start cheering, remember, you are there to teach. Not to form political, religious, sexual orientation or any social engineering. You need to concentrate on the basic needs of each child in your class and show them the way to learn.
This has gone on longer than I intended but I am sick and tired of all the complaints from all sides. Quit pointing out the many problems and start coming up with solutions.
For added emphasis, the problem is not, in my humble opinion, money. It is going to take every parent, grandparent, teacher, and anyone who has an interest in the future of America to stand up and do more than talk.
We have forsaken so many of our values,qualities and beliefs, that made this county what it used to be. Now, lack of respect for authority of any description including parents, teachers, law enforcement and even the church has degraded our society to the point that one must question our values.
By BIN News Edcitorial Staff March 1, 2009 at 8:00 pm
James the Foot Fungus thinks its all about “plantation mentality” and “massa” mentality which pretty much shows us his “Jim Crow” mentality.
And we would bet a dollar against a rusty Cadillac that Foot Fungus would be first in line with his silver spoon if he thought he could get a scoop of what he calls a “turgid stool” of stimulus money.
Foot Fungus, go shovel the snow off your driveway. The Cadillac convoy is on its way to your neighborhood.
Should be there in time for breakfast. Got grits?
BIN News Editorial Staff
Flair and Balanced
By James the Foot Soldier March 1, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Bin, if you count this posting alone you’ll see not only me but mackone, Rafe, Stinkball, huh?, Todd, Tired, tightwad, and Catherine, to varying degrees, in agreement that this state spends waaaaay more than is minimally adequate and the money is WASTED on educrats and not education.
Futhermore, your beloved “solution” of throwing mo’ money into the trough that is the educrat establishment only yields LARGER pigs, not BETTER educated pigs.
Not a good weekend for your petition is it?
Your humble servant,
jtfs
ps…I owe you one dollar – I’ll pay up when I get my first check for $13 dollars in April.
By JKPolk March 3, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I won’t call him a hack, but Bob does ignore a huge part of the Court’s standard. It ruled that the state must give each student the OPPORTUNITY to receive a minimally adequate education. That’s a big omission by Bob because it results in a much lower standard. The state doesn’t have to provide a minimally adequate education, just the chance to receive one. A roof and a textbook might be enough. It’s a far lower standard than the plaintiff school districts were requesting. Further, Bob never explains how he would have answered the question before the Court. The Constitution does have an absolute requirement of SOMETHING- “shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools open to all children in the state.” Well, what does that mean? Does it require teachers? Books? Buildings? It’s the Court’s job to interpret the constitution. I would like to know how Bob would have ruled. If “nothing in the constitution remotely suggests” the Court’s low standard, then what does it require?