About Me

My photo
1970 graduate of Hemingway High, Hemingway, S.C. 1973 graduate of Francis Marion College, Florence, S. C. (History - B. A.) 1973 Human Relations Award (Chesterfield County School District, S. C.) 1981 M. Ed. (University of S. C.) 1982 Teacher of the Year (St. James Middle School, Myrtle Beach, S. C.) 1988 Most Inspirational Teacher Award (Conway Chamber of Commerce) 1989 South Carolina Governor’s School Teacher Recognition Award 1991 Most Inspirational Teacher Award (Horry County) 1992 Most Inspirational Teacher Award (Horry County) 1992 South Carolina U. S. History Teacher of the Year (D. A. R.) 1992 South Carolina House of Representatives Award for Outstanding Achievements 1993 Teacher of the Year (Socastee High, Myrtle Beach, S. C.) 1993 Horry County District Teacher of the Year 1993 South Carolina Honor Roll Teacher of the Year 1998 Wellman, Inc. Golden Apple Award 2000 International Baccalaureate Shuford-Beaty Award (Excellence in Teaching) 2003 International Baccalaureate Shuford-Beaty Award (Excellence in Teaching) 2004 Joseph B. Whitehead Educator of Distinction Award 2005 International Baccalaureate Shuford-Beaty Award (Excellence in Teaching)

Friday, April 22, 2011

Board: "Moderate" Change Needed (Apr. 2011)

Sunday, April 3, 2011
E-Mail to Socastee High School Staff
 
 
Socastee Family,
 
 
The Horry County Board of Education is considering "moderate" changes to our system of governance.  At their retreat on Saturday, the general consensus was that minor changes were too little and major changes, such as a return to traditional governance, would be too much.  The Board wants to be much more informed and will be creating an ad hoc committee to begin the process of revising our governance policies.  The general sentiment seemed to be that our system of governance should no longer be called Coherent Governance.  It seems they are trying to create some type of a hybrid district, one that falls somewhere in between policy governance and traditional governance.  I believe this is like trying to mix oil and water.
 
After the meeting, I sent an e-mail to the Board to point out that they were beginning down a slippery slope that would logically lead to traditional governance.  More information will lead to greater knowledge, knowledge to understanding, understanding to thinking, thinking to convictions, and convictions to actions.  In the meantime, they will create a mess and a confusion of roles, especially for the superintendent.  Therefore, I suggested that they not postpone the inevitable and implement traditional governance, take back their traditional and legal authority, implement committees, and do what is right for the students and citizens of Horry County.  I also stated that if not enough time or too little money (salary) would keep them from embracing traditional governance that they should consider giving their seats to those who would make the necessary sacrifices for the betterment of Horry County Schools.
 
 
Bobby Chandler

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Superintendent's Letter and My Response (1/28/11)

Horry County Schools
January 28, 2011


Mr. Bobby Chandler
Socastee High School

4900 Socastee Blvd.

Myrtle Beach, SC  29588

Dear Mr. Chandler,

I am writing to address what seems to be a sense of urgency regarding your expectation that I respond to your Public Forum presentation to the School Board on January 24. I listened to and have re-read your presentation, and it is a well-stated opinion about our governance and budgeting process – but except for one question in the fifth paragraph, it is an opinion piece. In fact, your only question is “Are these cost effective?” (i.e., the costs for MAP testing, Early College and Scholars Academy). I think you already know that we have not done a formal return-on-investment (ROI) study that we can provide you for these three expenditures, but that does not mean we have not considered the effectiveness of each as we deliberate on our budget.

In fact, Scholars Academy is at or near the top among Horry County secondary schools in every performance measure used with other schools: SAT, ACT, End-of-Course pass rates, Advanced Placement pass rate, and HSAP. Likewise, Early College is one of the District’s leaders in End-of-Course pass rates and HSAP. Additionally, the fact that both schools have more applicants annually than they can enroll speaks strongly to the perception of students and parents from throughout Horry County about the effectiveness of the Scholars Academy and Early College.

As for MAP testing, it should never be viewed as a “program,”  since it has been used since 2003 as a diagnostic test that aligns with State standards (and therefore our State assessments PASS and HSAP); it provides the most frequent measure of Lexile reading levels of any assessment we use; and it allows students (and their parents) to consider their performance three times a year against a national percentile – the only national comparison students have until they begin taking PSAT (SAT) and Explore (ACT) in late middle school.

I would suggest that each of these has been considered for effectiveness – the same way that we consider the effectiveness of programs such as International Baccalaureate at Socastee and Aynor High Schools; AP courses at all our high schools; and continuing to bring back the best and most experienced teachers to teach in our schools.

I’m not sure what other assurances or responses that I can give you that will be satisfactory. I respect your opinion and the job that you do everyday in the classroom. Together, we will all make this a better school district.


Sincerely,



Cynthia C. Elsberry

Superintendent


 "To invent tomorrow requires vision today!"  - Colin Fox

Cynthia C. Elsberry, Ed.D.
Superintendent, Horry County Schools
P.O. Box 260005
335 Four Mile Road
Conway, SC  29528-6005

 
Dr. Elsberry,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns.  I, too, appreciate you as a person and respect the job you do everyday as our superintendent.  I have been extremely impressed by your demeanor, your attitude, professionalism, and warm, caring personality.  You have always treated me with the utmost respect.  I also believe that together we can make this a better school district.  In addition, I also respect your right to express your opinion.  I am sure that we agree on many things, especially our desire to do what we think is right and to put students first in all our endeavors.  On other things, at times, we can agree to disagree.  This might be one of those times, perhaps not.  Please let me try, once again, to clear up for you and others what might be a misconception of my concerns.

Although we operate currently under Coherent Governance, "evaluation" of our operations does NOT rest solely with you and/or the district administration.  Although it is your responsibility to make many decisions that impact our district in many ways, the Board of Education has the ultimate responsibility to evaluate results.  In fact, under our current governance system, that is their primary responsibility.  In addition, since the Board of Education is required by law to vote on our budget and related issues which impact the budget, such as allocation schedules, these two responsibilities make the Board ultimately responsible for evaluation of expenditures and their cost-effectiveness.  This should NOT be the sole responsibility of the superintendent and/or the district administration under any form of Policy Governance, ours included.

Of course, you have the right to evaluate any or all of our operations and make your opinion known to the Board and the public, as you have provided in your letter to me.  I respect your right to do so.  What I do not and cannot respect would be your exclusive right to do so.  If this were the case, there would be no room for the public to have any significant input.  Representative government demands that the public have meaningful input through their elected board representatives.  It also demands that the Board have ultimate authority over all operations.  If the Board had to accept your recommendations and your evaluative arguments about operations, then there would be no need for the Board.  You would have absolute control.  Since this is not the case, even under Coherent Governance (although I do believe we come very close), sufficient information must be provided by the district for the public, including me, to make our own evaluation of district operations.  The public can think for themselves. 

I do not teach my students what to think or evaluate difficult questions for them.  I want them to make up their own minds, to study all sides of issues, and to make final determinations on their own.  Evaluation and synthesis are at the highest levels of Bloom's taxonomy and are the essence of higher order thinking skills.  The essential meaning of evaluation is making judgments, of synthesis - creating new avenues and forging new paths.  These cannot occur without analysis, slightly lower on Bloom's taxonomy, but absolutely necessary for evaluation and synthesis.  Analysis cannot occur without the facts.  Remember Sergeant Friday, "Just the facts, Ma’am."  Without the facts, the entire pyramid crumbles.  Any evaluation can be faulty.

Even with the facts, people reach different conclusions.  Evaluations vary.  In a democratic-republic, debate of differences is necessary for the system to work the way it was intended.  A school district is a legally constituted entity. and the public should not be shut out.  Unfortunately, that is what is happening.  Our avenues are slim under Coherent Governance.  Our voices are but a whisper, and our arguments muted.

What I have tried to do in special editorials in the Sun News, e-mails, private conversations, and board addresses is to make the public aware that they should demand sufficient information from the district for their own evaluative purposes.  What is most needed, especially in the dire economic circumstances in which we find ourselves, is anecdotal and statistical information of our most expensive programs, practices, and materials, without district interpretation and evaluation.  Again, we, the public, can do our own thinking.  We can make our own judgments about the relative value of this versus that.

The table is not fully set.  The Board is NOT being given a full range of options.  Even though the district has not yet done a formal return-on-investment (ROI), the most expensive programs, practices, and materials could be put on the table, along with everything else the district has proposed.  The Board could decide to cut all, none, or a portion of any major expenditure, but without the option to do so, many sacred cows will continue to live.  Many might even be "pets" by now, and protected at all costs.  This is not fair.  We should not be afraid to continually put everything we do under the microscope for examination.  Not to do so is inexcusable, especially when public tax dollars are at stake. 

Having said all of this, the main reason I singled MAP out in my last address was because there is a serious discrepancy in the stated budget of over $450,000 and expenditures of a little under $250,000.  Scholars Academy and Early College were mentioned because they are expensive programs and significantly over budget, budgets which, by the way, are not given in the Official Budget document (2010-2011).  All other schools budgets are provided.  Since these are very expensive programs, I only raised the question as to whether or not they are cost effective, a decision which I think still remains with the public and the Board and should not be the district administration's alone.  In other public writing and board addresses I have included International Baccalaureate, as well.  It should be examined just the same as all other major programs.  The only reason I did not do so in my last address is because of its relative inexpensive nature and due to the fact that it is under budget.

I have never said or written anything denigrating Scholars Academy or Early College.   Honors are well-deserved, I'm sure.  I am one of the first to recognize excellence.  Since I raised the question of cost-effectiveness, many have construed my remarks and writings to mean that I am working for an end to these programs.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I simply want the public to know the total costs of all of our major programs in order for them to have the facts necessary for their own analysis, evaluation, and possible synthesis.  Some might need to be trimmed or possibly eliminated, but, on the other hand, our evaluations might confirm their continued existence.  We might even want to expand and create new options. Of course, our district should provide options for students, if possible.  However, we should be responsible stewards at the same time.  We cannot always do everything we might like to do. 

If we cannot have complete transparency and total disclosure, we ought to try to come as close as possible.  Otherwise, the public will resent our attempts at exclusivity, secrecy, and arrogance.  All district operations should be approached with President Reagan's philosophy of "Trust but verify."

You are right that my January 24th address is mainly an opinion piece.  Any essay or persuasive presentation ought to be.  Opinion pieces should be backed up with evidence.  Some of the most effective have been Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, King's "I Have a Dream" speech, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  Without opinions, strong ones at that, we would be nowhere today as a people.  I make no apologies for anything I write or say, and I do support my opinions with relevant facts.  My address on the 24th was not given to elicit a response from the district administration about whether or not the district thought various programs were cost-effective but to urge the district to give the public the facts for their own evaluative purposes. 

I try to express my ideas clearly, and perhaps I have failed to do so in the past on this issue.  Please forgive my shortcomings, if that is the case.  If the above does not clear up my intentions of late, please question me and challenge anything I have said or written.  I do not seek to be misunderstood.  I will continue to write and speak, however, whether misunderstood or not, because my conscience compels me to do what is right, no matter the consequences.


Sincerely, professionally, and respectfully,
Bobby Chandler 



Thursday, April 14, 2011

Autocratic Governance (April 14, 2011)

The following e-mail was sent to the Horry County Board of Education and leaders of the Horry County Schools administration on Thursday, April 14, 2011.  I titled it "Autocratic Governance."


Members of the Board:


Superintendents have been expanding their leadership roles for many years in traditional governance districts around the country, long before the policy board movement and the concept of Policy Governance began to be embraced in the late 1990s.  School boards have been relinquishing their control since early in the twentieth century.  Numerous cities have completely bypassed school boards and placed control of public education in the hands of mayors.   Other variations exist, and many do exhibit hybrid characteristics.  My campaign of late has NOT been to completely marginalize educational leadership and expertise, only to balance it with reasonable input from the public.  I am NOT trying to introduce a type of pure democracy and rule by the masses, only access to viable influence through their elected board representatives.  Superintendents and district administrations will still have the bulk of the influence on school boards.  Citizens will more often NOT make the effort and take the opportunity to involve themselves in the inner workings of our schools.  Yet, they should have the opportunity to do so.  This can only happen in a district that has a semblance of traditional governance, as I have defined it.  Boards of education must have management oversight and vote on curriculum, finance, operations, and all district policy, or school districts can no longer be considered democratic-republican institutions.  Without this practice, they become autocratic.  Yes, that means totalitarian.  There is no other way to describe the phenomenon of Policy Governance, Coherent Governance, or any other name for the policy board movement.  This philosophy demeans citizens, including teachers, and is highly elitist.  Let’s end it here and stop it from ruining other parts of our country.    


Bobby

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Traditional and Coherent Governance (Apr. 11, 2011)

Monday, April 11, 2011
Horry County Schools
District Office
Conway, S. C.




Members of the Board:
 
My campaign to have you abandon Coherent Governance and reinstate traditional governance has never been about improving test scores or measures of any kind. No studies have shown a correlation between any form of governance and measurable results. We have seen students succeed under both forms of governance. Nevertheless, facts will demonstrate clearly that traditional governance is better than Coherent Governance for a democratic-republic.

What is Coherent Governance? Coherent Governance has the board govern but severely limits its duties to very few beyond those required by law. The board makes policy for the board only. The board specifies parameters for and delegates its legal authority to the superintendent to make district policy, administer, and manage district operations. The board is responsible for setting goals, but the superintendent is responsible for the means of obtaining them. The board monitors and holds the superintendent alone responsible for results. The board does not interfere with how results are obtained, unless they are produced unethically or illegally.

What is traditional governance? Traditional governance has the board govern and make all policy for the board and district operations. The board and superintendent together have the responsibility to see that policies are carried out. The board oversees the superintendent’s proper administration of the district and directives of the board. The board and superintendent are both responsible for results and the means by which they are obtained. The superintendent never makes policy, not even for district operations. Both manage the district cooperatively. All legal authority rests with the board.

You have been mixing traditional and Coherent Governance, two contradictory philosophies, causing much confusion, and encroaching on the superintendent’s delegated authority. After a heated board discussion over dual credit and class rank at a recent workshop, a district administrator approached me and ridiculed the Board saying, "And you want more Board involvement?" Dual credit, rank, at-will employees, SROs, the board is even considering the establishment of a standing committee for procurement, all in the superintendent’s domain. Standing committees are not allowed under Coherent Governance, only temporary ones. In addition, a procurement committee would involve district management. Mixed governance will not work!

Of course, you can treat your Coherent Governance Policies as mere suggestions, operate loosely with fluid governance, and do anything you like with your plenary authority by majority vote, but do not wonder why many are upset with the actions of this board and the status of district operations. If you are not going to follow even the spirit of your own policies, then why have them? Revisions will not help, for these policies are fundamentally flawed. 

The facts clearly demonstrate that democratic practice is not being honored. Citizens have virtually no influence over curriculum, operations, district policy, and how their tax dollars are spent. Board policy does not give the board management and voting authority over these matters. Citizens are virtually shut out of their own public schools, their voices becoming mere suggestions to the superintendent who represents no one. As much as we need the expertise of professional educators, we need a knowledgeable, involved board to represent citizens’ concerns about all operations. Therefore, if you value citizen participation and democratic practice, traditional governance is superior to Coherent Governance. This is a fact, plain and simple, not a matter of opinion.

Since it is obvious that you want to regain some of your legal authority and are causing us to zig and zag down a slippery slope, please save us the agony of the descent, reclaim all of your legal authority, and vote for a return to traditional governance.
 
 
 
 
Sincerely,
 
 
Bobby Chandler
 
722 Pine Drive
Surfside Beach, S. C. 29575