Tiger GPS: Government and Public Service Blog

TOP TEN FOR SOUTH CAROLINA by Monica Culbreath

Even though Domestic Violence has been a topic getting traction in South Carolina since Governor Nikki Haley declared October as Domestic Violence Awareness month, the incidence is not getting much lower. Looking over the most recent numbers in South Carolina, it is disheartening to learn we are still ranked among the top worst states for Domestic Violence in which women are killed by men. Even though the numbers are at their lowest since the ranking system was formed, South Carolina is still one of the top ten. This is such a terribly expensive badge for us to wear. It is not readily known how costly Domestic Violence is to the state as most still see it as a family problem. Domestic Violence is very costly to the state: costly mentally, physically, and economically to experience, support the victims, and punish the perpetrators of Domestic Violence.  Here are some impediments that keep South Carolina among the top states with this deadly issue.  

Most citizens of South Carolina are not conscious of the extremely high rates of Domestic Violence which take place in this state. This indifference has serious implications as problems cannot be addressed if one is oblivious to them. There is just such a lack of resources available for the victims and survivors of Domestic Violence.  For the entire state that has about 5 million people, there is only one organization (SCCDVSA) which acts as an umbrella for 13 organizations available to combat Domestic Violence. The low number of existing supports translates to lack of services for the many victims living in the state. Without adequate funding many survivors are unaware of the limited resources which are available. One of the easiest solutions to address our Domestic Violence problem is to bring attention to the problem. Knowing the high financial toll absorbed by the state would encourage solutions developing plans to prevent domestic violence. 

Domestic Violence in South Carolina is a complex problem calling for many solutions as each situation is different. For one adult providing housing removes them from experiencing Domestic Violence while for another extensive therapy and education is needed to successfully escape.  It is essential for us to address the obstacles keeping South Carolinians at the top of such a deadly list as it is costing the state more than $350 million dollars annually based on a study from Dr. Joey Von Hessen. This is not acceptable; this cost is too high. Lives are being lost and children are becoming orphans. Modifying proven solutions in other states is another step to aid South Carolina in effectively finding answers. Hopefully, in the next twenty years, South Carolina will be ranked in the bottom states in incidents of domestic violence instead of the top. 

EDUCATION FOR “MAKING THINGS WELL” IN SOUTH CAROLINA by Sandra Chavez

On March 5, 2020, the South Carolina Senate voted to amend the Code of Laws of South Carolina of 1976 and enact S419 “South Carolina Career Opportunity and Access for All Act.” The amendments in the new legislation appear to be driven by the State’s economic interests to retain existing and attract new industry. As reported by the Upstate Business Journal in July 2018,  the region’s increasing proficiency in several subsectors — advanced materials, aerospace, automotive, bioscience, and energy — continues to attract investment and jobs from new and expanding companies. “It’s impossible to overstate the role that manufacturing has played in transforming the economy of both the Upstate and South Carolina as a whole,” said S.C. Secretary of Commerce Bobby Hitt. “With the rise of complex manufacturing, our state and our workforce have built a reputation as a global-brand state — a state that not only makes things but makes them well,” he added. “This reputation continues to attract industry leaders from around the world who now view South Carolina as an industrial powerhouse.”

The antecedent to the achievement of the State’s goal is a high-quality educational system.  The results reflected in the 2019 South Carolina Report Card point to a potential shortage in the pipeline for qualified and highly skilled workers that could adversely impact legislative interests. Only 45.4% and 45.1% of third through eighth grade students, respectively, meet or exceed grade level standards in mathematics and English language arts.  During the same timeframe, only 38.9% of high school graduates demonstrated they were college and career ready. In spite of these results, South Carolina continues to attract global industrial players such as BMW, Michelin, Boeing, Ricoh and Volvo (to name a few), thus increasing the pressure to translate legislation into results.

The new legislation embeds executive and administrative oversight of the State Department of Education. The Senate bill (S419) restructures the Education Oversight Committee and creates a new ‘Zero to Twenty’ committee to provide executive branch oversight of programs targeted to learners in these age groups.  The modifications in S419 – to teacher work days and baseline salary, expansion and alignment of Career Pathways curricula, emphasis on Computer Science, the elimination of social studies state assessment, measures to add literacy reading endorsements for all instructional staff, teacher certification waivers for high performing districts and alternative certification pathways for licensure – respond to some, but not all of the Palmetto Teacher’s Association’s and SC for ED’s agendas and offers only structural answers to a systemic challenge.

This legislation follows previous attempts to reform rather than transform an educational system that to date has failed in its attempts to impact equity and support best practice innovations in student learning, especially for the State’s most disadvantaged students. It will be interesting to observe how the new legislation navigates the underlying interests and agendas of the sub-groups and administer a code of laws that will have real and sustainable impact to achieve the 2030 goal and improve the lives of all students and families in South Carolina.

MISMANAGED AND MINIMALLY INADEQUATE: PUBLIC EDUCATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA by William Everroad

Public administrators in the State Board of Education and district school boards face an uphill battle. Funding usually comes from federal, state, and local sources. Federal funding in South Carolina averages about 11% with state (46%) and local (44%) funding splitting the rest, according to the appropriations bill ratified by the SC General Assembly in June 2018 (hereinafter, H4950). The consumers, students, and parents rarely have an inside look at how funds are allocated and spent until funds are grossly misused at the school level. Additionally, education funding, which is only 19% of the state’s 2018 budget (H4950), is one of the single largest line item expenses next to the Department of Health and Human Services at 31%. However, education spending is in the same discussion as funding for the Department of Transportation at 10% and the next highest line item, the Department of Corrections at 2%. If the state is already funding education more than most other items in the budget, the issue must be with efficient use of funds.

School level financial transparency is believed to lead to more accountability in this area, as covered by The Atlantic in January 2015. The idea is to promote openness in the management of funds through reporting how, why, and where funds are allocated with indicators of performance to establish returns. Many states are mandating school level transparency and ensuring compliance via online portals where the information is uploaded for public consumption.

The way funding is typically allocated is on a cost per student basis. In theory, a school would get more funding allocated if it has more students. In South Carolina, the cost per student is currently set at $2,425 with a proposed increase to $2,510. However, according to a recent study conducted by Clemson University’s own Holley Ulbrich and Ellen Salesman in 2017, the projected base cost per student is $2,984. That leaves $474 per student to be funded by other sources. In the same study, the researchers recommended updating the formula that the state uses to calculate base cost. Even if consumers know this information, it still does not highlight where the problem is and why exactly there seems to be “poor” schools and “rich” schools. One of the problems was settled in Abbeville County School District v. The State of South Carolina in 2014 (hereinafter ACSD V SC). It was decided in that case that the method of allocating funds without regard to district wealth caused some schools to be even more underfunded because wealthy districts with the same number of students would receive more funding from local taxes than schools in lower economic districts. It became so pervasive that the underfunded schools could not even provide the state constitution’s definition of “minimally adequate education.”

What are the standards of learning that are being used to measure a “good return” and what is a “minimally adequate education”? In ACSD V SC, the court defined it as “the provision of adequate and safe facilities in which students have the opportunity to acquire: The ability to read, write, and speak the English language, and knowledge of mathematics and physical science; A fundamental knowledge of economic, social, and political systems, and of history and governmental processes; and Academic and vocational skills.” One real measure of reading ability is the literacy rate among 4th graders. Studies show that if students do not have adequate reading skills by the 4th grade, they will continue falling behind as they are not able to keep pace with classroom instruction. Learning to read and then reading to learn, yet in 2016, two thirds of all 4th graders in South Carolina were unable read at grade level, which was 39th place in the nation in literacy, according to the executive director of Reading Partners, a Charleston-based ngo. The South Carolina Read to Succeed Act was implemented in 2014 to address the falling literacy rate in the state. However, it was seen as a mismanaged band aid that cost $214 million and in 2017 the National Assessment of Educational Progress revealed 4th graders in South Carolina ranking 47th in the nation in reading. The bulk of the funds was used to hire reading coaches who trained teachers how to teach reading from the 3rd to 4th grades. The unsuccessful program may have highlighted a key problem that was not addressed by the Read to Succeed Act. By targeting the outcome and trying to improve literacy, legislators ignored the inputs.

The teachers are a funded input, and the investment was not paying off. This could be that, from inception, inputs were not considered with a mind to investment efficiency. Legislators believed that, at $2,425 per student, they were paying for inputs that would end with students acquiring a “minimally adequate education” and when that didn’t happen, they looked toward fixing the output instead of the inputs. In fact, when Gov. Nikki Haley signed the Read to Succeed Act, she said, “If a child cannot read by third grade, they are four times less likely to graduate on time. That changes now because we are now going to say that no child will move forward past the third grade if they can’t read.” All the while, the public sentiment was that South Carolina was doing a bad job in educating students. However, South Carolina teachers are among the worst paid in the nation and maybe some of the worst teachers. One part of transparency reform would be to conduct a skills gap analysis to identify disparities in staff expertise when it comes to teaching, as suggested in the SAF School Management Blog. It could be argued that in South Carolina, a skills gap analysis is not necessary since it is known that in the worst performing districts; almost 30% of teachers failed to achieve full certification in accordance with the State Constitution (ACSD V SC).