email this
print this
Decision not victory or loss, school activists say
Emphasis on early childhood education praised, but other assertions criticized
By CLAUDIA SMITH BRINSON
Columnist
No pity parties. No dancing a jig, either.
They’re scratching their heads, instead.
Education activists hoping to celebrate a decision in Abbeville v. South Carolina are not quite sure what they have.
“This is almost like ‘The Da Vinci Code,’” says John Rainey, referring to a popular and very complicated thriller. “I frankly think the plaintiffs got a lot more than they at first understand.”
The decision has a give-and-take air to it, as do the responses from activists.
Judge Thomas W. Cooper Jr. ruled Thursday that children in the plaintiff districts are “denied the opportunity to receive a minimally adequate education because of the lack of effective and adequately funded early childhood intervention programs.”
However, the circuit judge also ruled that buildings, teacher standards and other components of public schooling in the plaintiff districts meet a “minimally adequate” standard set by the state Supreme Court.
So in the same breath Rainey adds, “The thing that continues to disturb me is he says buildings are adequate and safe.” Rainey cites J.V. Martin Junior High School, built in 1896 in Dillon County. There, a bell tower’s ceiling collapsed onto an assistant superintendent’s desk.
Rainey, chairman of the S.C. Board of Economic Advisors, raised funds for “Corridor of Shame,” a 2005 film documenting the poor condition of schools in the plaintiff districts.
“I think it’s not a victory, but a starting point for guidance of the Legislature,” says Rhett Jackson, co-chairman of Education First. The coalition of 89 groups formed to support the plaintiff school districts and push for equal education throughout the state.
“He seemed to say buildings were adequate. That’s simply not so.”
Tom Truitt, recently retired as executive director of the Pee Dee Education Center, sounded the same notes. He says he’s pleased Cooper’s decision requires improving and expanding early childhood education. But “I don’t understand how he cannot do something about facilities.”
Truitt, who has been involved in the lawsuit from its 1993 start, attended almost every minute of the 102-day trial. He observes wryly, “Both sides are trying to say, ‘We won but don’t like what we lost.’”
Lonnie Randolph finds a similar tension. He says of Cooper’s decision, “I’m glad he said what he said, but he said what we already know.
“Judge Cooper in his decision said nothing new, nothing not said before, nothing those serving in elected positions haven’t known for the past 12 years.
“I don’t think it means we have anything to celebrate.”
Randolph, president of the state NAACP, invited Education First to join the annual march to the State House on King Day.
Bud Ferillo also finds himself disturbed. He says, “I think the decision is a ‘minimally adequate’ decision and one that can certainly be improved by the (state) Supreme Court.”
The producer and director of “Corridor of Shame,” Ferillo is president of Ferillo and Associates in Columbia, a public relations firm.
He adds, “It leaves out unequal teacher salaries and dangerous, unsafe and inadequate facilities and effective programs for math and science and foreign language that are simply unknown in our rural districts.”
All quickly point out that their parsing the decision means little. The meaning — and any effects — of Abbeville v. South Carolina arrive only when the Legislature acts.
Which brings us to the state Supreme Court decision Cooper relied upon — and its author, retired Justice Ernest Finney Jr.
“I am pleased the matter is still alive and well,” he says. “I refuse to be downhearted.
“Those of us who care about public education have got to get the Legislature’s attention and convince them, ‘You can help the counties in need.’
“We’ve got to do what we’ve got to do for education.”
