South Carolina: Parent Opposition and Resistance on Ed Reform Initiatives

For Immediate Release
March 27, 2012

Contact Person: Sarah Johnson
Phone: (803) 920-4058, (843) 819-8933
Email: CVedu20@gmail.com

Local Parent/Teacher Advocacy Group Welcomes US Secretary of Education to Town

Charleston, SC – Charleston Area Community Voice for Education, an affiliate of Parents Across America, extends a welcome to US Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who will be participating in a local round-table discussion on educational reform and touring James Simons Elementary School on Friday. The advocacy group is excited that local leaders and educators will be participating in the event.

Sarah Shad Johnson, a parent of children in Charleston County Schools and co-founder of Community Voice, says, “The timing of Secretary Duncan’s visit comes at a critical time when our state legislators are discussing whether or not to support the adversarial Common Core State Standards, as well as bills regarding school choice, charter school expansion, and tax credits for private schools; our State Superintendent of Education seems to be embracing a controversial stand on the teaching profession; and the focus here in Charleston County appears to be only on experimental, questionable, and expensive initiatives, as opposed to goals of increased learning opportunities.”

Peter Smyth, a retired educator and administrator, and also a co-founder of Community Voice, says, “After a career in education and research into educational reform, I have come to these conclusions: while South Carolina Superintendent Zais has applied for a waiver to No Child Left Behind, his proposals reflect those of Secretary Duncan and the current and previous administrations, policies which have not achieved their goals and have made raising test scores and graduation rates, rather than meaningful learning, the default goals of American education. These are policies that are not found in any other high performing countries. To paraphrase another leader, the Duncan/Zais reforms are not the solution to the problems; they are the problem. I believe that teachers’ and parents’ seats at the table have been replaced by philanthropists, corporations, highly paid consultants, and politically-driven think tanks. Most importantly, I do not believe the current reforms bode well for my granddaughter, about to enter public school in Charleston.”

Secretary Duncan’s visit also coincides with an organized national demonstration at the US Department of Education in Washington, D.C., opposing Duncan’s educational reforms. Currently, there is significant national concern over the direction of Secretary Duncan’s leadership. With thousands of parents, educators, state legislators, school districts, and superintendents across the country protesting U.S. Department of Education policies, Community Voice is concerned about the pressure Duncan has placed on South Carolina, including a verbal lashing of state leaders who have considered dumping the Common Core State Standards.

Community Voice supports:

• effective reforms, such as reduced class size


• experienced teachers


• increased time for teacher professional development and planning


• relevant content supporting critical thinking


• sufficient and equitable funding


• diversity in schools


• appropriate use of technology


• meaningful parent involvement

Community Voice opposes:

• privatization of public schools


• punitive high-stakes standardized testing


• school closings


• ignoring the influence of poverty

Community Voice is committed to moving education forward rather than maintaining the status quo policies of the last ten years. For more information about Community Voice, contact (843) 819-8933 or CVedu20@gmail.com. For more information on Parents Across America, please visit www.parentsacrossamerica.org .

Ed Reform Storm Clouds Gathering

South Carolina made news this week in a well-attended State Senate meeting regarding a bill that would reverse the state's 2010 decision to implement the Common Core standards. Senator Mike Fair opposes the implementation stating it takes away local control. An AP report on the proposed bill got national coverage in Education Week and a mention by Neil McCluskey of the Cato Institute in a piece called "War Against the Core". McCluskey wonders if the Palmetto State has a "huge desire to withdraw."

The AP report also got state coverage in the Post and Courier stating that Governor Niki Haley supports the bill "as an extension of her frequent complaints of federal overreaching." S.C. State School Superintendent Mick Zais also does not support the decision made prior to his election; however, he is committed to implementing the decision as required.

The meeting described as full, with standing room only. Testimony favoring the standards came from South Carolina educators who have been preparing for implementation since the 2010 decision. They expressed concerns about a rollback now and based on their experience working with the standards, they find them to be "good standards."

On the other side, testimony was presented from the following prominent conservative think tanks, all opposing the implementation of the Common Core standards:

1) Jim Stergios from the Pioneer Institute
2) Bill Evers from the Hoover Institute at Stanford University
3) Jane Robbins from the American Principles Project

Time ran out before all who wished to give testimony were able to and the meeting will continue February 23.

In an Op-Ed "Rotten to the (Common) Core", Furman University Professor Paul Thomas explains that the Common Core standards require additional testing and increased costs:

"New tests also create hidden and recurring costs despite claims that computer-based testing will save printing and scoring costs of traditional testing. Those hidden costs include both additional funds (such as insuring all schools have the technology to test all students) and most importantly costs in time. Teachers must be trained directly and spend time learning the standards themselves while a tremendous amount of instructional time will be replaced by yet more teaching to the test and, with the new regime of testing, more testing days throughout the entire school year."

Professor Thomas continues by noting that "SC public education is not now and has never been failing due to a lack of quality standards or high-quality tests. Curriculum (standards), instruction, and testing are the elements within the teaching process, but they are not learning. And not one of these elements should be confused for learning."

Professor Thomas believes that learning is "stifled in SC by the inequitable and often deplorable teaching and learning conditions in many schools," which will not be addressed by new standards and computer-based testing.

Stay tuned......

No Unnecessary Tests (NUT) Report: Good Riddance Day

Today is Good Riddance Day, a tradition to say goodbye to something that caused misery, worry, and other negative reactions during the year. To join this event, Grumpy Educators wishes to say good riddance to unnecessary tests and illogical forced compliance.

For followers, the story of South Carolina mother, Gretchen Herrera, is familiar. For others, the story crystallizes the twisted nature of compliance-driven high stakes assessment regimes, which puts the health and well-being of children at risk. After denied exemption from standardized testing for her son based on a complicated medical condition, Mrs. Herrera filed a formal complaint with the US DOE Office of Civil Rights (OCR). In the jurisdiction cited by the OCR, it investigates allegations of regulations that discriminate against students on the basis of disability "by treating them differently (e.g. less favorable) from similarly situated students who are non-disabled." The OCR findings conclude that the complaint lacks sufficient evidence that discrimination based on disability occurred.

In South Carolina, limited reasons are permitted by regulation for a school to exclude a student from its reporting. Exclusions apply only to students who are homebound or not homebound, but physically/mentally unable to test on the days and make up days of testing, and have a physician letter, death, expulsion, incarceration, or transferring. Given these definitions, the OCR finding concludes that the reporting system works without discrimination.

Nevertheless, the finding leaves more questions than answers. The deeper issue regarding the rights of a parent to protect the health and well-being of their child remains unaddressed. Parents and children are caught in the middle of a reporting system that affects school grades and funding. What is in the best interest of the student is not part of the equation. The opinion of school-based and school-district staff was that the medical letter was opinion and did not qualify under any of the regulated exclusions.

In a U.S. Supreme Court determination, Troxel v. Granville, the justices relied on the 14th Amendment:

(a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause has a substantive component that “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, including parents’ fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651. Pp. 5—8.

In October, South Carolina Virtual Public Charter School "withdrew" the student citing the parent's failure to comply with the school rules. The student is homeschooled; however, receives specialized services in coordination with a middle school. Under this arrangement, the health, well-being, and specific educational needs of the student are the first priority and protected.

During the November 2011 Senate ESEA Reauthorization Hearings, a Kentucky teacher and witness described a terminally ill student who was denied exclusion from standardized testing, in spite of being barely able to breathe. Notably, the testimony received no follow up question by any Senator and only one follow up news report. In Correct the record in No Child Left Behind Hearing, Greg Skilling adds detail to the story. The teacher and school assistant principal filed papers and appeals without success; and finally, in spite of the lack of exclusion and instructions to begin testing, the school determined they would not test the child. Five months after the first submission of paperwork, the exemption was granted and a few months later, the child died. This event took place in 2007 and Skilling reports that the "Kentucky Department of Education is still investigating this case and has not reported any findings prior to the publication of this article."

Parent witnesses were not included at the ESEA Hearings in spite of mounting evidence of parent concerns over the effects of test-centric, compliance-driven accountability, and loss of parental rights. There are more of these stories that go unreported, underreported, and unexplored.

South Carolina Parents Challenge Standardized Testing

In a U.S. Supreme Court determination, Troxel v. Granville, the justices relied on the 14th Amendment:

(a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause has a substantive component that “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, including parents’ fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651. Pp. 5—8.

South Carolina appears to have ignored this fact with regard to two cases where parents requested their children not participate in standardized testing.

Gretchen Herrera's son has a complicated medical condition, which is exacerbated by testing regimes. His medical team recommended he not be tested as it puts his health at risk. The request was denied, Mrs. Herrera allowed testing, and after the first day of testing, his health was negatively impacted. If a parent had neglected the health and well-being of their child, they'd find themselves in court with the government stepping in to protect the child. In this case, the government is endangering the child and ignoring the parent. Grumpy Educators reported her situation here. She has taken her request all the way to Washington D.C., and her battle continues this year.

Sharon Johnson's son has a complicated medical condition, and was treated in "an outpatient day treatment to stabilize children with severe emotional and/or behavioral problems. Among other criteria, admitted children must have demonstrated behavior serious enough to jeopardize the safety of others." Upon completion of treatment, he enrolled in public school and slated for standardized testing. In spite of a written medical recommendation that "he was mentally unable to be tested", South Carolina insists if a child can attend school, the child can be tested.

Ms. Johnson believes it is discriminatory to "require mentally unable students to take the exam when physically unable students are exempt, and she's filed a federal Office of Civil Rights complaint to that end." Her case is in process. Read more here.

District officials said this was not a question of fairness to disabled students, but rather following state and federal laws. The school district attorney put it this way:

"It's about measuring the school and district performance," Emerson said. "That's the way the standards are applied."

In the 1925 U.S. Supreme Court decision Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the finding included:

The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right and the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.

Is the State endangering the health and well-being of these students by ignoring medical recommendations?