"A-minus?!?" What does it take to get an "A?"

Harry Harris of Sumter sent in a piece too long to be a letter, but it did not get selected as an op-ed. So here's the next best thing -- I'm putting his piece on my blog.

Obviously, I was interested because he was grading a debate in which I took part. Here's his assessment:

GRADING THE EDUCATION CANDIDATES

After watching the ETV debate between the candidates for State Superintendent of Education, my mind switched to my days of being in school and teaching students.  I just had to give them a grade. I want to make it clear what those grades mean by explaining the criteria used. 

I rate Karen Floyd's effort a D plus after adding and subtracting the key points covered. Her presentation rated an A-.  She is well rehearsed and makes a good first impression. The main detractor was her uncomfortable demeanor when pressed to give straight answers to some clear questions. 

On substance, I grant a C, based on a broad look at issues and preparation for debating them.  She had a noticeable fall-off in content after a good start.  The content of her proposals and answers were, however, mostly based on business-model ideology and risky, costly proposals.  She offered nothing but "competition" and outsourcing as solutions for students left-behind in struggling schools.  Her comments about public schools were framed with negativity, and selectively repeated ad nauseam the two areas where South Carolina lags furthest behind - SAT scores and dropout rate.

Her failing areas were clarity and trustworthiness. In addition to evasive answers that sounded much like a lawyer who is familiar with the weaknesses of her case, she sometimes forced the questioners to ask what she really meant by some of her statements. She left an impression that she is not willing to say in public what she really thinks or intends to do.  Her evasiveness on voucher questions leaves a deep uneasiness that she may still believe what she touted to Republican Party and business groups in her pre-primary rounds but is unwilling to honestly admit it.  Are we to believe she made no promises to outside-the-state voucher proponents who have given over half of the non-borrowed money for her campaign? How honest can one be and ignore top ratings given the state on curriculum standards, teacher standards, national testing results (NAEP), SAT and ACT score improvements.  F on trustworthiness! 

Dr. Rex earned a B+ from me.  His presentation was a B level effort.  His remarks seemed less refined - and somewhat less rehearsed.  He handled the tougher issues and questions without grasping for wiggle-words and seemed quite straightforward.  It did not seem to bother him to explain that current political conditions - a certain Governor - caused rethinking and modification of his views on electing the State Superintendent.  He didn't even wince at being called a bureaucrat.

On substance, the ideas he included in his answers and remarks gained a B plus after subtracting for what he did not include. (I'm a hard grader.)  While citing his innovative efforts in building-up the teaching profession in South Carolina through the Teacher Cadets and alternative certification, he failed to adequately point out the damage done to the profession and the demoralization of working educators brought about by the Sanford/Floyd philosophy. Though he outlined the need for change and innovation informed by experience, he did not include a reminder of the damage, morale drain, and test score decline under Ms. Floyd's supporter, Barbara Nielson. Nor did he adequately highlight the reversal of that decline under Inez Tennenbaum who led reform without attacking her own troops.  His reform plans seem grounded in experience and sound fiscal judgment.

In clarity and substance, Dr. Rex stood out.  Is there any doubt where he stands on vouchers?  He was clear about the kinds of choice he thinks show promise.  He did not filibuster or evade tough questions.   He was honest and forthright about where he wants to lead - and about needing to comprehensively address the difficult issues - whether taxes, funding, or the failure of some schools.  He seems trustworthy and clear.

Solid A. 

I was forced to subtract some extra points from Jim Rex's overall score for being too uncritical of Ms. Floyd's assertions.  Her remark about a position paper she "wrote" would have drawn a quick F in my classroom.  After reading the paper referenced on her website months ago, I found a strangely similar paper at the Manhattan Institute website.  Footnotes have since been added to "her" paper on her website.  They cite the Manhatten Institute, The Heritage Foundation, The Center for Education Reform, The Home School Legal Defense Association, and Jay P. Greene - a chief writer for the Manhatten Institute.  Each is an opponent of public schools and a voucher proponent.  Good scholarship, Ms. Floyd. 

He also did not mention the large loans taken out by the Floyd campaign - over $181,000 just this quarter.  This gives her lots of money to have a large campaign voice, but who will pay back this money after the campaign? I suspect it will be largely those out-of-state sham companies that are her largest contributors to date - the ones to whom she owes nothing - right?  Dr. Rex was a true gentleman as he stated.  It cost him 5 points on my scale.

The debate panelists ran a good debate.  They asked good questions, and gave good opportunity to respond, but did not allow empty or evasive responses.  A -.

Harry Harris

Sumter

 

Perhaps after I call his attention to this star billing, Mr. Harris will just come straight here with his offerings the next time my buddy Mike Fitts turns him down for print.