Inez agrees….I think?

When she hasn't been running for other polictical offices, Inez Tenenbaum has been the Superintendent of Education in the state of South Carolina.  This is a very important job that sets the tone of education in the state.  Naturally, as is the case with those who seek higher office, Mrs. Tenenbaum likes to tout every success that our education system has, and minimize its failures.  I suppose that is fine, when you consider that we have made this a political position.  (Maybe we could elect a governor who can change that?)

So, I read with interest about her comments at a recent event for SC school administrators. 

In pointing out the problems with education, Mrs. Tenenbaum pointed out that we need more spending, better programs, and better teachers, right?

Nope.

She pointed out problems like poverty and culture change.  What do these two items have in common?  Need a hint?  That's right, neither are even remotely under the control of schools?  What, are schools going to start paying students to just show up?  Hey, they aren't Alabama football players.  And can schools really change the culture of worthless parents not teaching children the importance of an education?  Sorry, this stuff starts at home.

Instead, I predict that her and her disciples will complain about underfunded schools and all of the other gobbly-gook that they spout and change nothing. 

Can SC’s education system be fixed? Is it broken?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Well, people may not be entitled to thier own facts, but there sure can interpret those facts differently.  Take the education system in South Carolina, for instance.  Some see the bad test scores and high dropout rates driven by rural SC schools and say that the schools are failing our children.  Others see the same set of facts and interpret it as a failure of the families and communities in rural SC that fail to provide direction to young children who end up as a statistic.

I, for one, tend to fall into the latter category.  While I don't think that PPIC will magically fix public education, I can understand why parents in rural counties would want to send thier children to private schools.  You see, there is no practical difference between the way students are taught in Lexington and Bamberg.  But, more money is spent in Bamberg, and students perform worse.  Why?

If there is little difference in the curriculums or materials, and nobody says that the teachers are just worse, then the problem must be another influence.  Perhaps we should consider the possibility that it is the homelife of the students who are failing that is causing them to fail. 

So, if the problem is poverty and irresponsibility, why aren't we working on those issues instead of dumping more money into a school system when it is clear that it will be lost and wasted in the school administration? 

Shouldn't we put more police on the streets to enforce drug and alcohol laws?  Shouldn't we enforce truancy laws?  Shouldn't we work to create jobs and grow the economy?

Fix those things, and you fix education.

Should schools have branding campaigns?

Richland 1 Touts "Urban Advantage"

Coca-Cola has branding campaigns.  GM does as well.  You can even go so far as to say that Columbia, SC could have one when you consider the tourism (try not to laugh) and convention (try not to laugh harder) business.  But should a school?

Why in the world is a school system that struggles to educate it's children and constantly complains about underfunding wasting time and money on a branding campaign?  How does this benefit the state taxpayers who are funding the school?  Are people going to move high paying jobs to Richland because of the slogan of the school district?  Maybe they should just focus on education.