taking root - south carolina's lessons for sustaining the college- and career-ready agenda

Taking RootSouth Carolina’s Lessons for Sustaining

the College- and Career-Ready Agenda

About Achieve

Achieve, created by the nation’s governors and business leaders,is a bipartisan, non-profit organization that helps states raise aca-demic standards, improve assessments and strengthen account-ability to prepare all young people for postsecondary education,careers and citizenship.

About the American Diploma Project (ADP) Network

In 2005, Achieve launched the ADP Network—a collaboration ofstates working together to improve their academic standards andprovide all students with a high school education that meets theneeds of today’s workplaces and universities. The ADP Networkmembers—responsible for educating nearly 85 percent of all ournation’s public high school students—are committed to takingfour college and career readiness action steps:

• Align high school standards with the demands of college andcareers.

• Require all students to complete a college- and career-readycurriculum to earn a high school diploma.

• Build assessments into the statewide system that measurestudents’ readiness for college and careers.

• Develop reporting and accountability systems that promotecollege and career readiness for all students.

© September 2009 Achieve, Inc. All rights reserved.

Taking Root: Strategies for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda would not have been possible without the gener-ous support of the GE Foundation.

Table of Contents

Introduction ......................................................2

Sustainability Lessons in South Carolina ......5

Conclusion......................................................14

Case Study Interviewsand Works Cited ............................................16

South Carolina’s EducationImprovement Act

Introduction

In 1983, A Nation at Risk was published, drawing the na-tion’s attention to the implications of an ineffective and

inefficient education system and motivating many re-formists into action. In South Carolina, the educationsystem was failing its students; at the time, high schoolstudents’ average SAT scores ranked 50th and the gradu-ation rate was 43rd in the nation. Employers were strug-gling to transform South Carolina from a textile andtobacco growing-heavy state into a more robust stateeconomy but were finding that the old mantra of “come tothe Sun Belt for cheap labor and low taxes” was no longerenough to make up for the lack of a prepared workforce.

As these problems converged, a severe recession hit thecountry and the state as well. To deal with needed edu-cation changes and large shortfalls in state revenues,Governor Richard Riley considered proposing a one-centsales tax increase to fund an education aid package, avariety of state programs, property-tax relief and infra-structure support. He convened prominent businessleaders in the state to float the idea and see if it had trac-tion before making any specific commitments or propos-als. Governor Riley quickly found that while the leaderswould not support a general state government-fundingpackage, they would support the penny tax increase ifthe governor would agree that all of the revenues werespent exclusively on funding a K-12 reform package,particularly one that included educational innovation andaccountability provisions. This began a massive effort tocraft a reform package that would reshape South Car-olina’s education system.

It was not an easy sell: When Governor Riley first pro-posed a new education reform package statewide, leg-islative support for the package was very low, as itrequired a tax increase in a time of economic uncertainty.While the state champions were finding supporters at thelocal level through extensive grassroots outreach efforts,including regional forums, that support did not immedi-ately trickle up to state legislators. A poll of House mem-bers in early 1984 found that only 22 out of 134supported the plan, primarily due to the penny sales tax.

Yet, within a year—after an aggressive campaign to en-gage and encourage buy-in and support from the busi-ness community, politicians, local leaders, parents and

educators—the General Assembly overwhelmingly ap-proved the Education Improvement Act (EIA) with an ini-tial appropriation of over $200 million in June 1984,which now values at almost $550 million a year. The Act,which contained over 61 provisions and 20 programs topromote innovation, established a new dedicated fund-ing stream for K-12 education; new high school gradua-tion standards and an exit exam; remedial programs;incentive pay awards programs for educators, principals,schools and districts; an increase in teachers’ salaries;and a range of other programs (see sidebar on page 15for full details of the EIA). It also included several unusualprovisions that were specifically intended to help sustainthe reforms over the long term.

South Carolina’s EIA of 1984 ushered in a new era of ed-ucation investment in innovation, both during its seven-year phase-in and even today, a quarter of a centurylater. By creating a dedicated funding stream that couldonly be used for education and an improvement focus,the leaders who crafted EIA ensured its existence today.

Seven years after passage of the Act, one of thestatewide oversight committees, the South CarolinaBusiness-Education Committee, highlighted a numberof impressive results from 1984-1991, including:

• South Carolina’s college-going rate increased signifi-cantly over a decade: In 1983, 41 percent of the state’shigh school graduates were admitted to college; in1991, 53 percent were admitted to college. In addition,a reported 93 percent of first-year college courses weresuccessfully passed by South Carolina graduates whowere enrolled as freshmen.

• South Carolina’s scores on the SAT test increased anaverage of 36 points, the highest gain among statesprimarily using the test for college entrance. Blackstudents’ scores increased 69 points.

• The percentage of young children rated “ready” forregular kindergarten work increased by almost20 percent.

• By 1989-90, per-pupil spending rose 50 percent andteacher salaries remained on par with the Southeasternaverage, although still lower than the national average.

2

Taking RootLessons for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda

To give states the information they need to sustainhard-fought education reform effectively, Achieveconducted research on state education reformsthat have been sustained successfully for over adecade or more. Funded by the GE Foundation,Achieve hopes this work will help other state lead-ers, wherever they may be on their road to reform,replicate successful strategies and accelerate sys-temic reform in their own states, particularlyaround the college- and career-ready agenda.

The project includes:

• Four case studies that examine both governmen-tal and non-governmental strategies that wereeffective in making reform last in Indiana, Massa-chusetts, South Carolina and Texas.

• A paper that draws on and synthesizes the casestudies’ overarching lessons and states’ strate-gies for sustainability.

• A tool that states can use in their own planning.

The four states were chosen because they wereable to pass and sustain significant education re-forms over time, for at least a decade. The focus ofthe case studies is not on the specific policiespassed, but rather the process and strategies thestates employed to make significant change last.

The South Carolina EIA story is often cited as oneof the strongest examples of a successful cam-paign to adopt, implement and sustain a compre-hensive education policy agenda. This case studyseeks to describe the processes and decisions thatallowed for such a successful adoption and imple-mentation, as well as identify lessons other statesmay use when crafting and putting a major policyagenda into place to ensure the agenda is sus-tained over time. What did South Carolina do? Whowas involved? How did they make it happen? WhileSouth Carolina is still struggling to raise achieve-ment and attainment today, this should not detractfrom the important lessons we can learn from thedeliberate and far-reaching steps South Carolinatook in the 1980s to ensure the EIA was sustainedsuccessfully for well over a decade.

Strategies for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda

3

In addition:

• By the mid-1990s, 97 percent of schools were offer-ing Advanced Placement (AP) courses, compared toa national average of 56 percent of schools, althoughpass rates remained at the 55 percent range through-out the 1990s.

• By one account, more than 185 foreign companiesopened operations South Carolina between 1984 and1993, creating more than 40,000 new jobs, driven

largely by the education reforms (including the ex-pansion of vocational education), extensive industrialrecruitment and continuation of low taxes.

While there has been some evidence of mission creepover time —such as the use of EIA funds for non-“in-novative” programs— the EIA is still a major elementof South Carolina’s education strategy, providing morethan $500 million to support innovation, achievementfor all students and teacher equity.

1983 —Governor Riley proposes penny tax increase and convenes Business-Education Committees

—State plans and holds regional forums

1984 —EIA passes, forming the Select Committee and launching the Division of Public Accountability

—Business-Education Committees tasked with continuing work

1985 —EIA begins to go into effect

—First “What Is the Penny Buying for South Carolina” issued

1986 —Regional implementation forums and councils launched

1987 —Governor Carroll Campbell enters office

1988 —Governor Campbell convenes the “Task Force to Develop a New Five-Year EIA Program”

1989 —Target 2000 passes

—Business-Education Partnership and Business-Education Subcommittee replace earlier ver-sions

1991 —Division of Public Accountability eliminated

1992-93—Business-Education Partnership and Subcommittee eliminated1995 —Governor David Beasley enters office

1998 —Education Accountability Act passes

—Select Committee replaced with Education Oversight Committee

1999 —Governor James Hodges enters office

2001 —The lottery passes in South Carolina with most of the proceeds going for education

2003 —Governor Mark Sanford enters office

2008 —State Superintendent Rex forms several statewide committees to propose updating thestate’s education funding system and the revenue sources for education

Major Milestones


4

Every state—and every reform effort—has its ownunique elements, history and political context. While

these often make for interesting observations, they are oflimited utility for other states trying to create their owneducation reform plans and manage their own reform ef-forts. Of more value are lessons and strategies—bothpolitical and substantive—that speak directly to whatmakes a public-policy change successful and whathelps it “stick” in the system to make a difference. Thefollowing lessons were gleaned from interviews with indi-viduals who have played a role in South Carolina’s edu-cation reform efforts and the review of many documents.

Strong and consistent political and educationleadership is vital to laying the groundwork for asustainable reformMajor reforms efforts would not be possible without fo-cused and consistent state leadership. Leaders are nec-essary to draw public attention to and drum up supportfor major education reform efforts. Their ability to con-vene, motivate and navigate complicated terrains isparamount in launching a comprehensive reform effort,particularly one that can be sustained over time.

Gubernatorial Leadership

The leadership demonstrated by Governor RichardRiley, who used his bully pulpit and political capital tobuild the support and coalitions needed to pass the am-bitious reform agenda, was a key element of the devel-opment and passage of the EIA. Gov. Riley was criticalin building up other champions of the EIA, as well asestablishing a value system that placed accountability,continual improvement, innovation and public-privatepartnerships at the center of education policy in SouthCarolina.

Gov. Riley embodied a number of elements of a suc-cessful leader: He used his bully pulpit to advocate forthe reform; he purposefully and successfully garneredbi-partisan support; he reached out to individuals out-side the government for financial, political and publicsupport; he had a depth of knowledge on the reformand was able to address concerns of opponents; hecapitalized on his support among educators and par-ents to help them accept and embrace some cutting-edge reforms; and he did not waver in his support of thereform over time.

For example, when Gov. Riley put together the twoblue-ribbon panels to develop a proposal and plan for anew education package, he purposefully reached out tostakeholders outside of the government, as well as indi-viduals who were skeptical that the strategy wouldwork. By bringing different perspectives together, thecommittees served as incubators that generated a

South Carolina’s Sustainability Lessons• Strong and consistent political and educationleadership is vital to laying the groundwork for asustainable reform

• External champions, particularly the businesscommunity, are key to building momentum andmaking the case for education reform over time

• Governmental and quasi-governmental institution-alized mechanisms, built at the beginning of thereform efforts, can facilitate long-term stability

• States need to engage a broad base of stakehold-ers early and often to ensure long-term support,high-quality implementation and sustainability

• States need to invest smartly to ensure thereforms—and necessary capacity-building—areadequately funded over time

• Effectively using data can counteract—and evenprevent—pushback


Sustainability Lessons in South Carolina

5

The Evolution of Oversight


6

broad range of ideas and, allowed the participants tolearn about and from one another. Over the course oftheir planning, the participants became a strong andunited coalition of not-always-like-minded individuals.

Since the EIA was adopted, South Carolina has seenfour governors elected. The first of which was CarrollAshmore Campbell, Jr., a Republican, who was electedjust three years after the Education Improvement Actpassed, and was very committed to education reform.Upon coming into office, Gov. Campbell planned to getrid of what he viewed as some of the stronger financialcommitments to the “Riley reform plan.” Yet after beinglobbied heavily by members of the Business-EducationPartnership and Subcommittee to stick with the re-forms, he came to realize that, politically, it was smarterto let the reforms play out and supported the EIA, evenduring budget crunches throughout the 1980s.

In 1988 Gov. Campbell convened the “Task Force toDevelop a New Five-Year Education Improvement ActProgram,” which purposefully engaged a number ofbusiness and education leaders and led to the Target2000 Act. Target 2000 expanded upon the EIA in a num-ber of ways. While EIA had focused on raising gradua-tion requirements and providing targeted remediation,Target 2000 focused on reducing the dropout rate. TheEIA required the governor to initiate the development ofa state plan on early childhood development and edu-cation to ensure the state provided all the necessaryservices to preschool children. Target 2000 vastly ex-panded on this. Target 2000 kept the tradition of innova-tion going forward by including the arts in the basiccurriculum initiative to expand the arts and creativelearning in interested schools.

In addition, in large part because of the overwhelmingsupport from the business, education and larger statecommunity, in 1991, Gov. Campbell came out in supportof the EIA when the House Ways and Means Committeetried to use the trust fund to pay for other educationprograms. His support was much-needed coverage forthe EIA during a contentious time in South Carolina. Inhis budget proposal for that year, he left the EIA intactwhile calling for cuts from other programs.

Over the past 25 years, a number of governmental andpublic-private oversight entities have been formed, beendissolved and replaced one another. Briefly:

• The Business-Education Partnership and the Com-mittee on Financing Excellence: These committeeswere convened by Gov. Riley in 1983 to formulate areform proposal. When the EIA passed in 1984, thesecommittees were formalized and mandated by law toreconvene at least once annually to review the EIA’simplementation and make recommendations forimprovements. In 1989, the Business-EducationPartnership was renamed the Business-EducationPartnership for Excellence in Education and theCommittee on Financing Excellence was renamed theBusiness-Education Subcommittee, and it becamea standing committee. The committees were dissolvedin the early 1990s.

• The Select Committee/Education Oversight Com-mittee: The EIA created a Select Committee, a legisla-tively-formed entity that included primarily electedleaders from across the state, to review and monitorthe implementation of the EIA’s programs. In 1998, theSelect Committee was replaced with the EducationOversight Committee and re-tasked to focus onmonitoring the recently adopted Education Accounta-bility Act. The EOC still exists today.

• The Division for Public Accountability: The EIA alsoestablished the Division for Public Accountability, lo-cated in but not held accountable to the Departmentof Education, to plan, monitor and review programsdeveloped under the EIA. The Division was mandatedto exist only until 1991, and its funding was allowed tolapse at that time.

• The EIA required that each school have a schoolsite improvement council and a school improve-ment plan. More than 10,000 parents, educators andcommunity members have served on a school im-provement council and this has continued for a quar-ter of a century to today.

Taking Root

Governor Campbell’s support for EIA eroded during inhis second term; he dissolved the Business-EducationPartnership and Subcommittee and chose not to re-upthe Division of Public Accountability’s funding. While thisdid not completely eliminate the EIA, it seriously weak-ened the coalitions that consistently had supported thereform. The other major education bill Gov. Campbelloversaw was the Early Childhood Development and Ac-ademic Assistance Act of 1993, which did expand uponthe provisions of the EIA and Target 2000 regarding ac-cess to early childhood education, dropout prevention,and tailored assistance and remediation to strugglingstudents. However, this bill did re-direct some of the EIAfunds, without buy-in from the Business-Education Part-nership, and was implemented without the Division ofPublic Accountability.

An important thing to note is that many people viewed—and still do today—the EIA as “Riley’s plan.” This wasquite positive when he was governor as it empoweredhim to move a huge agenda forward, while workingacross the aisle and with leaders inside and outside thegovernment. However, the strong association betweenthe EIA and Gov. Riley may have made it more temptingfor subsequent governors to craft their own educationplans in order to leave their own mark in the state.

Leaders at all levels of the government

While there is little question that governors and their keyeducation, policy and political staff are in unique posi-tions to champion large-scale reform, there are also crit-ical leaders at other levels of government. In SouthCarolina, a number of Department of Education staffersand fairly young legislators provided critical leadershipboth during the adoption and implementation of the bill.This can largely be attributed to the ownership these in-dividuals felt around the EIA.

Early on and throughout the development process, anumber of South Carolina key legislators and educa-tional leaders accompanied Governor Riley to national

and regional meetings where many contemporary edu-cation reform issues were discussed. On a number ofoccasions, out-of-state experts and public figures, suchas governors who led education fights in other states,were brought into South Carolina to discuss their efforts.

In addition to using their bully pulpits and inherent pow-ers, state political leaders, including the governor andthe chair of the Senate Education Committee, did tar-geted outreach to legislative leaders, a move that paidoff significantly. A group of younger legislators volun-teered to divvy up the reform act and be trained as“experts” on different sections—not just the formal pro-visions but also the reasoning and evidence behindthem—so they could explain them in detail to theircolleagues. Working with the governor’s office, thesechampions managed to get members to consider themerits of the substantive proposals separately fromfunding, finding that once a legislator agreed to the re-forms in principle, it was easier to convince him or her ofthe need to fund it.

The growth of these champions had both short- andlong-term benefits. Running up to the EIA’s adoption,they could credibly explain why each provision is neces-sary, the research behind it, how it was priced out andother relevant facts to opponents. In the longer term,when some aspects of the bill’s implementation becamecontentious or were misunderstood, these legislatorscould explain the justification for and mechanics of thatcomponent over and over again. In addition, there are ahandful of legislators who were in the early stages oftheir career with the EIA passed in 1984 and are now ingreater positions of power, while having maintained theoriginal values of the EIA.

After the reform was passed, the state superintendent ofeducation, Charlie G. Williams, dedicated about twentyof his staff to ensure that the bill was implementedsmoothly and successfully, in alignment with his othereducation priorities. While some of these employees

Lessons for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda7


8

were hired specifically to implement the EIA, others hadbeen key players in getting the bill enacted. Having ahandful of non-political appointees remain engaged onthe implementation of a bill they had worked hard to getpassed helped keep the momentum moving forwardand the message and goals consistent.

For example, it was these Department of Education staffmembers who proposed and built support for the cre-ation of a regional implementation strategy. This strat-egy, largely organized through a second round ofregional forums, was intended to help facilitate imple-mentation, keep the lines of communication open sothat local stakeholders could bring attention to seriousproblems or issues, and maintain the sense of sharedownership over the reforms.

Also important is that Terry Peterson, dubbed GovernorRiley’s “right-hand man,” stayed on after Gov. Riley leftoffice and coordinated the Business-Education Partner-ship and served on the Select Committee, the legislativeentity responsible for monitoring the EIA, through 1993.This provided a level of consistency for supporters bothinside and outside the government. Peterson hadworked closely with many of the business leaders onthe Business-Education Partnership and Subcommitteein developing the content of the EIA, as well as withmany of the legislators who championed the bill in theGeneral Assembly. In addition to his institutional knowl-edge and deep understanding of EIA’s technical details,he had the respect of and familiarity with many of thekey players throughout the 1980s and into the early1990s, providing crucial leadership and support to en-sure South Carolina stayed the course.

External champions, in particular the business com-munity, are key to building momentum and makingthe case for education reform over timeThe commitment of the leaders outside of the govern-ment—in particular members of the business commu-nity—was critical throughout the entire process ofadopting and implementing the reform, both at the statelevel and on-the-ground. Once Gov. Riley discoveredthe business community would support the penny salestax increase if it were allocated to education improve-

ment and innovation, he, in collaboration with the statesuperintendent of education, convened two blue-ribboncommissions charged with developing a final proposal.

• The Business-Education Partnership was the “big pic-ture” committee personally chaired by the governorand consisting primarily of prominent state businessleaders and high-ranking legislators as well as across-section of educators.

• The Committee on Financing Excellence was the“heavy lifting” committee meant to work through thenuts and bolts of the reform proposal, consisting ofabout one-third citizen and business representatives,one-third educators, and one-third government repre-sentatives including legislators. It also included repre-sentatives of education organizations and was chairedby a highly respected, up-and-coming business leader.

Given the success of these committees in drafting com-prehensive legislation and bolstering statewide support,the Education Improvement Act included a provisionthat required versions of these independent, statewidepanels (later re-named the Business-Education Partner-ship for Excellence in Education and the Business-Edu-cation Subcommittee in 1989) to remain engaged in theimplementation of the bill. These panels provided aforum for business leaders to offer their perspectives oneducation policy and programs and to interact with edu-cators and education leaders on a regular basis.

Business leaders also invested resources into the cam-paign for EIA. When the state legislators failed to showearly support, business representatives on the commit-tees rallied private sector support to the tune of$100,000 for a public outreach and action campaign toget the legislation passed. The campaign included atoll-free hotline and phone banks to answer questionsand encourage supporters to contact their state repre-sentatives and a print and television ad campaign withthe slogan “A Penny for Their Thoughts.” As a 1986Washington Monthly article on Gov. Riley put it, “soontelevisions in homes across the state were filled with im-ages of pregnant mothers, blue collar workers and pin-striped executives confessing they feared for their


children unless the state improved the education sys-tem.” A former aide to Gov. Riley told the magazine, “Bythe end, some legislators were promising to vote yes ifonly we’d stop the phone calls.”

In addition, members of the blue-ribbon committees ag-gressively reached out to regional and national biparti-san groups to help focus the state’s efforts. Groups likethe Southern Regional Education Board, EducationCommission of the States, National Governors Associa-tion, National Conference of State Legislatures and theBusiness Roundtable provided cutting-edge ideasaround new and broader educational issues and policiesthat had mainstream support. The national reports andorganizations provided much needed context and cov-erage, which proved to be very useful given the scopeof the reform and the large number of people involved inthe decisionmaking.

Well after the reform passed, the business communitystayed engaged in the state’s education system. In1991, for example, State Superintendent Barbara Niel-son called on 35 business leaders to participate in atask force that would develop recommendations for re-structuring the Department of Education to, in her ownwords, “[move] from the basic-skills reform of '83 and'84 to a new phase of reform. We're now looking at re-

form to make sure our dollars get to the classroomlevel.” The participation of various business leaders onthe Business-Education Partnership and the Business-Education Subcommittee also ensured passionate andcommitted business leaders had a forum for remainingengaged. A number of the original members of the Sub-committee remained involved in the work through the1989 reforms.

More broadly, the business community was part of anextensive coalition of stakeholders, driven in large partby their collaboration with education and political lead-ers in the Partnership and Subcommittee. This was par-ticularly demonstrated in 1991 when the House Waysand Means Committee adopted a proposal to use someof the one-cent sales tax revenues for general educationexpenditures rather than for the specific EIA reforms asintended. Even the state superintendent backed thecuts. But EIA backers banded together and loudlyprotested the proposal to “raid the fund.”

According to an Education Week story at the time, “Afterheavy lobbying by education and business groups,however, the House approved a compromise measurecalling for most of those programs to be funded fromgeneral revenues.” While certain programs of the EIAwere eliminated, the core elements of the bill remainedsecure by the dedicated funding stream. Indeed, JosephGrant, the executive director of the South Carolina Edu-cation Association at the time told Education Week, “Ithink [this debate] has given us the opportunity to reaf-firm the fact that this program is well-supported. Oncesomeone tried to assault the EIA, the original playerscame back together again.”

Governmental and quasi-governmental institutional-ized mechanisms, built at the beginning of the re-form efforts, can facilitate long-term stabilityThe EIA was particularly remarkable in that it included anumber of provisions to facilitate its implementation.

Joseph Grant, the executive directorof the South Carolina Education Asso-ciation at the time “I think [this de-bate] has given us the opportunity toreaffirm the fact that this program iswell-supported. Once someone triedto assault the EIA, the original playerscame back together again.”

9


Notably, it institutionalized a number of governmentaland public-private entities to monitor and provide feed-back on the implementation and evolution of the EIA.

Business-Education Partnership and Business-Education Subcommittee

First, the EIA “institutionalized” versions of the blue-ribbon committees that developed the proposal by au-thorizing the governor and state superintendent ofeducation to reconvene the stand-alone, independentBusiness-Education Partnership and Committee on Fi-nancing Excellence at least once annually to review theimplementation of this act and recommend improve-ments.

In 1989, these “quasi-governmental,” public-privatecommittees were reconstituted as the Business-Educa-tion Partnership for Excellence in Education and itsstanding Business-Education Subcommittee. Over thedecade, a number of state business, education andgovernment leaders from the original committees re-mained on the panels, which was a major factor in sus-taining the reform. In simple terms, the Partnership wasestablished as a forum where business leaders couldprovide input on South Carolina’s education system.The Business-Education Subcommittee, in particular,played a significant role in reviewing state plans andprogress reports to ensure any new or existing pro-grams were being implemented efficiently and effec-tively. The committees eventually were eliminated in theearly 1990s.

The Select Committee/Education Oversight Committee

The bill also created a Select Committee—a legisla-tively-formed, yet independent entity that included busi-ness, education and civic members—tasked withreviewing and monitoring the implementation and evalu-ation of the EIA programs and funding. The Select Com-mittee was composed of state elected leaders or theirdesignees, including the speaker of the house, chairmenof the house and senate education committees, statesuperintendent of education, chairman of the commis-sion on higher education and others. The Select Com-mittee was largely responsible for issuing annual reportsto the General Assembly, State Board of Education and

public about the progress of the programs and their im-pacts and making recommendations about necessaryfunding or programmatic changes.

In 1998, when the Education Accountability Act (EAA)was passed, the Select Committee was replaced withthe Education Oversight Committee (EOC) and re-tasked to focus on overseeing the provisions of theEAA, although the EOC still has a subcommittee dedi-cated to the EIA and improvement mechanisms. TheEOC continues to provide analyses of student perform-ance, educational programs and funding to the GeneralAssembly and develops the state’s school- and district-level report cards. Given that the Business-EducationCommittees were phased out, the EOC became an evenmore important voice—the “next-generation” of theefforts.

Division for Public Accountability

Finally, the law established a new Division for PublicAccountability “for the planning and development of theimplementation of the Education Improvement Act,”which was housed in the Department of Education, buthad a level of autonomy. This decision was made to en-sure the Division was neither adversarial to the Depart-ment nor absorbed into it, could access the necessarydata, and didn’t lose credibility with outside stakehold-ers. The Business-Education Subcommittee nominatedcandidates to head the Division, with the appointmentmade by the state superintendent in consultation withthe governor. The Subcommittee intentionally wantedsomeone who “didn’t need the job” financially to ensurethe unit’s head could speak truth to power without fearof retaliation.

This “special unit” was mandated to exist only until1991 to plan, monitor and review programs developedunder the EIA and provide information, recommenda-tions and an annual assessment of the Act to the Gover-nor, Select Committee and Business-EducationSubcommittee. To keep all of the committees and enti-ties in alignment, the Business-Education Subcommit-tee was tasked with reviewing the Division’s productsand making recommendations to the State Board ofEducation for final approval.

10

These entities all worked together to ensure implemen-tation was done right and that the reform was having itsintended impact. However, the relationships were not al-ways easy ones. There was natural tension between thesemi-autonomous accountability entity and the imple-menters, yet this tension was important to ensuringtransparency and deliberate action.

In addition, all of these entities made it very difficult forany future governor or legislature to undermine the EIA.The next major education package—Target 2000 Act of1989—was rooted in many of the same principles andgoals of the EIA, and the Business-Education Partner-ship, in particular, played a major role in providing rec-ommendations for and supporting that bill.

However, Terry Peterson, who coordinated the SouthCarolina Business-Education Partnership for ten years,suggests that the overall reform effort really needed an-other feature, a totally independent bipartisan advocacycoalition or organization. Such a coalition could bemuch more aggressive than governmental or quasi-governmental organizations in advocating for continualeducation reforms and fighting off raids on the EIA andother critical education funding.

States need to engage a broad base of stakeholdersearly and often to ensure long-term support, high-qual-ity implementation and sustainabilityVery early on, Governor Riley and his supporters com-mitted to a grassroots strategy to develop support forand buy-in around the education reform package. Theywanted to ensure the proposal had wide stakeholderagreement and quickly realized that the most effectiveway to sway legislators was to have constituents sup-port it. By engaging early, and often, through forums,site visits and eventually a wide-scale public serviceannouncement campaign, South Carolina was able tobuild supporters from the ground up, among parentsand local education leaders, and get the state comfort-able with the idea of major education reform.

After the original blue-ribbon committees sketched outan initial plan, they vetted it with the public to garnerfeedback that might highlight problem areas and, also,to begin to generate broad grassroots support for anambitious reform package—and the sales tax to pay forit. To that end, they crafted an ambitious plan to holdseven regional forums throughout the state duringSeptember and October 1983. The forums had twooverarching strategies to garner support and sharedownership: (1) provide a data-driven and well-groundedrationale for the recommended plan and (2) offer com-munity members the opportunity to voice their own pri-orities and concerns about the reform agenda.

To achieve the first strategy, the forums featured presenta-tions by top leaders, including Gov. Riley and key local ed-ucator and business leaders, where the recommendationswere laid out, along side arguments from major reports,such as A Nation at Risk, and studies commissioned bythe blue-ribbon panels. As the chair of the program sub-committee of the Business-Education Partnership at thetime, Bill Youngblood, described it, “at every forum, inevery community, we had a mixture of business, educationand [political] leaders speaking in one voice. We hadbecome missionaries for educational excellence.”

By engaging early, and often, throughforums, site visits, and eventually awide-scale public service announce-ment campaign, South Carolina wasable to build supporters from theground up, among parents and localeducation leaders, and get the statecomfortable with the idea of majoreducation reform.


11

The Education Improvement Act Today


12

These presentations were followed by small-group dis-cussions led by specially trained facilitators. The facilita-tors were tasked with completing forms to summarizethe opinions of their groups and working together to pulltogether the consensus. Each forum generated a reporton its community’s priorities, which were shared with allof the forum participants and the state committees. Inaddition, earlier on the day of the forum, the state lead-ers in town for the forum would visit schools, speak tocivic groups and local PTAs, and appear on televisionand radio broadcasts to drum up enthusiasm for thereform proposal and the evening event. While these fo-rums did not necessarily lead to major shifts in the origi-nal blueprints of the bill, they did help focus on importantfeatures and identify pitfalls to avoid.

About 13,000 people participated directly in the eveningforums and approximately 40,000 people total partici-pated in activities related to the “forum days” in someway. The traveling facilitators worked with groups of 50or so trained volunteers, along with scores of other vol-unteers at each of the seven regional forums. Many ofthe volunteers from the education and civic groups whohelped mount the forums were left with a deeper invest-ment in the reform effort because of their efforts tomake it a success.

Two years after the EIA was passed, the Department ofEducation launched a second round of regional forums,focused on implementation. Many of the Department ofEducation staffers who had participated or worked onthe original forums took responsibility for finding, man-aging and reporting school improvement data to monitorand share progress being made across the state. The fo-rums provided an opportunity for the state to explain thelack of results in the short term, maintain local engage-ment and garner explicit feedback from those on theground. Down the line, superintendents were fierce sup-porters of the EIA and resisted attempts at the state levelto de-fund or eliminate any of EIA’s provisions.

States need to invest smartly to ensure thereforms—and necessary capacity-building—areadequately funded over timeThe legislation created a special Education Improve-ment Act Fund and required a two-thirds vote for themoney raised through the new penny tax to be re-allocated for any other purpose. This had a major im-pact on the implementation and sustainability of the EIA.According to a 1991 report by Terry Peterson, “Becausefunds for the South Carolina incentives are assured inthe special reform fund, complex reforms—such as […]the exit exam for graduation with the provision of extrahelp to students likely to fail it—could be phased in anorderly manner over a six-year period.” In the longerterm, although subsequent education bills called forspecific programs to be funded by the EIA trust fund—some more relevant to the EIA’s original intent than oth-ers—the EIA remains a dedicated funding source forK-12 education in South Carolina today. In a number ofinstances, the fund still finances original programs, suchas teacher pay and school-based incentives.

In addition to shoring up a dedicated funding stream foreducation and EIA-sponsored programs, the EIA also in-vested in capacity-building and teachers. Given that anumber of the EIA’s provisions were based around ac-countability—such as ensuring all students achieveabove the basic level and developing district plans forimprovement—the bill smartly provided the necessaryfinancial support to schools, teachers and principals toimplement the new accountability measures. A majorelement of the EIA was that the fund was to be—andtoday still is—used to help close the gap between localteachers’ salaries and the Southeastern average. It alsocontained direct provisions to elevate the teaching pro-fession, for example, upgrading teacher preparationstandards in colleges, grants directly to teachers to trynew ideas, and competitive grants to colleges for cen-ters of excellence in teaching. The EIA also included anumber of incentive-based programs that rewarded topschools for improvement and success.


South Carolina’s education today

By the mid-1990s, the original EIA coalitions had largely beenunraveled. The Business-Education Partnership and Subcom-mittee and Division of Public Accountability had been elimi-nated, and state leaders were more comfortable shiftingfunding for programs between the EIA fund and the generaleducation fund. However, traces of the EIA remain embeddedin South Carolina’s education system—and in the state’s edu-cation leadership.

When the House Ways and Means Committee proposed shift-ing EIA funds in 1995—as they had attempted to do in 1991—to cover a decrease in the general education fund and helppay for a property-tax plan, the Committee was supported bythe state superintendent and Gov. Beasley. A compromisewas eventually reached between these stakeholders and thesupporters of the EIA—the state cut $10 million and 10 pro-grams from the EIA, rather than the $30 million and 22 pro-grams proposed, and re-allocated district funding throughother programs—but it was only temporary. By early 1997,when Gov. Beasley released his budget, he required EIA fundsto augment more of the state’s general education spending.

Gov. Beasley went on to pass two major bills during his oneterm in office including the Education Accountability Act (EAA)of 1998, which remains the foundation of South Carolina’s as-sessment and accountability system. While the EAA mainlydraws from the general education fund, it also relies on theEIA to fund specific programs—some aligned with its originalvision and some that are not.

To attempt to capture some of the reform and excitement ofthe EIA and to address new education issues and fundingneeds, Governor James (Jim) H. Hodges, Beasley’s succes-sor, led the charge to pass a statewide lottery with the majorityof the proceeds going for education. It passed in 2001, be-coming the first new funding source for education since theEIA passed 17 years earlier. The lottery generates almost $150million annually for a variety of early childhood, K-12 andhigher education programs. At the time the EIA was being de-veloped, Gov. Hodges was a leading attorney for a largeSouth Carolina business whose CEO’s were some of thestrongest supporters of the EIA.

The two most recent state-elected superintendents, InezTenenbaum and Jim Rex (current), have worked to engagemany more educators and community members in supportingreform, pitching once again the need for higher standards and

innovation. Former Superintendent Tenenbaum, working withthe governor and state legislators, led a successful effort forthe first statewide bond bill to fund the renovation and con-struction of schools. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, 25years ago, both Superintendents Tenenbaum and Rex wereactually involved in the original planning and passage of theEIA, albeit in very different positions.

Getting EIA’s funding back on track

Like many states, South Carolina currently is experiencing aneconomic downturn. To make matters worse, the state re-cently replaced its education property taxes on one’s primaryresidence (regardless of the value of the home or income ofthe homeowner) with a two-cent sales tax increase. This hasput a tremendous hole in local school district budgets at theworst possible time, in the middle of a deep recession. Inorder to sell the property tax swap politically, the state elimi-nated the sales tax on groceries. This decision—along with ageneral decrease in individuals’ buying power—has turned a$700 million-plus EIA fund into a $554 million-fund (as antici-pated for Fiscal Year 2010) in just three years and left districtscutting their budgets further.

At the time this paper was being written, an important battledeveloped around whether South Carolina will accept the“stabilization funds” from the federal stimulus package to helpcompensate from some of the severe education cuts resultingfrom the recession. Governor Mark Sanford said he would notaccept the stabilization portion of the funds, but the state Leg-islature recently overrode the Governor’s veto of using the sta-bilization funds overwhelmingly. The South Carolina SupremeCourt sided with the Legislature and ordered the governor toaccept the funds. This bipartisan coalition is reminiscent of theEIA legislative coalition and in fact some of today’s key legisla-tors or their parents were part of that original EIA effort.

Longer term, Superintendent Rex and the Education OversightCommittee are working with the House Ways and MeansCommittee and Senate Education Committee to refocus theEIA’s programs and return to its fundamentals. While there arecurrently 60 line items funded by EIA—including things out-side the purview of the EIA such as textbooks and adult edu-cation—Superintendent Rex and the EOC are working on aplan to reduce that number to 20 to put them back in thebroad categories to provide schools with flexibility, or, accord-ing the Education Oversight Committee Executive Director JoAnne Anderson, “come full circle.”

The Education Improvement Act Today

13


14

Effectively using data can counteract—and evenprevent—pushbackThroughout the process of adoption and implementa-tion, South Carolina continually collected and used datato make the case for the large-scale education reform.Immediately after the bill passed and the Division ofPublic Accountability was formed, the Division commis-sioned special analyses of various aspects of the reformand worked with other agencies to collect and reportdata to the public. When stakeholders—and themedia—began asking to see results, even before themajor policies had been put into place, the Division andBusiness-Education Subcommittee realized theyneeded to be putting out whatever data and informationthey had to maintain support.

The state began releasing an annual statewide “reportcard” on the progress of the reform effort called, “WhatIs the Penny Buying for South Carolina,” initially focus-ing on trends in general student performance and indi-vidual programs in the areas of student academicperformance, services to special students, services toschool personnel, school conditions, community in-volvement and public confidence on the reforms. Thereports were shared with the General Assembly and thebroader public, including participants in the implemen-tation forums. In later years, the annual report includedinformation on the EIA’s expenditures, trend data overtime, and, generally, how the EIA affected South Car-olina’s education system.

This report is still issued today now by the Departmentof Education to evaluate programs funded by the EIA,although in a much more abbreviated format that typi-cally examines only one program or initiative each year.

ConclusionWhile South Carolina is by no means the highestachieving state today, in the 1980s, it was seen as anational leader on education policy, reforms, and gain-ing very positive and impressive results. The compre-hensiveness of the EIA—and the broad coalition ofpolitical, business, education and local leaders whochampioned the bill—was seen as a model reform ef-fort and is still widely respected today.

The EIA may have lost some of its stature in the mid-1990s, but it still remains a significant element of thestate’s education system and helped usher in a new vi-sion for education and for educational partnerships.Today, the EIA has more than $500 million in the cofferand there is little evidence to indicate that this fund—largely dedicated to innovative programs—will ever goaway. As the deputy superintendent for finance and op-erations at the South Carolina Department of Educationand former accounting manager of the EIA, John Coo-ley noted the EIA “provided an infusion of money thatallowed South Carolina to make substantial improve-ments—if we hadn’t done it, who knows where wewould be. The only thing more difficult than adding an-other one-cent tax today would be taking away theone-cent tax from education.”

The major lessons of the passage, implementation andsustainability of the EIA are that careful deliberation andplanning at the onset can pay off in the long run. Moreso than any other state at the time, leaders in SouthCarolina thought about long-term sustainability and itshows. The “intentionality” of South Carolina’s efforts,as well as the dedicated leaders inside and outside thegovernment, and institutionalization of entities to over-see the implementation and provide recommendationsfor improvement over time, demonstrates that sustain-ability doesn’t have to be an afterthought, but can be apart of the policy adoption and implementationprocess.

An equally important lesson, however, is that not onlydo states need to ensure they have shared ownershipover any reform package, but there also needs to beconsideration given to ensure there is shared leader-ship as well. While the coalitions built early on to sup-port the EIA were successful at protecting the EIA forsome time after Gov. Riley left office, subsequent lead-ers eventually sought to leave their own mark ratherthan just continue to support or make constructivechanges in the “Riley plan.” Within a decade after theEIA’s passage, subsequent governors demonstratedthey had little issue with dismantling the governmentaland quasi-governmental entities that made it so strongand co-opting the reform and its funding to pay for theirown agendas.

Taking Root

The 61 strategies contained in the EIA were designed to give acoherent and comprehensive approach to major school reformas well as to build upon the state’s earlier reforms. They weredesigned to have a positive effect on students, teachers, ad-ministrators, schools, districts and the state as a whole whilecalling for more parental, business and citizen involvement inthe schools. The EIA also attempted to promote advances ineducation from early childhood education through elementary,middle and high school reform and for at-risk and talentedand gifted students—a bold approach that represented com-prehensive reform.

1) Raising Student Performance by Increasing AcademicStandards: increasing academic standards, strengtheningstudent discipline and attendance, providing more effectiveuse of classroom learning time, providing programs of excel-lence for talented students (including access to AP courses),providing more relevant vocational training programs, provid-ing programs for handicapped students.

2) Strengthening the Teaching and Testing of Basic Skills:requiring an exit exam for graduation, enacting a promotionpolicy, improving the basic skills in all grades (including volun-tary early education and required remedial programs), alcoholand drug abuse programs in schools, pupil-teacher ratios.

3) Elevating the Teaching Profession by StrengtheningTeacher Training, Evaluation and Compensation: increasingthe number of highly qualified persons going into the teachingprofession, raising teacher salaries to attract and hold quali-fied persons (including teacher incentive programs), improving

training of current and prospective teachers, maximizing theuse of teaching time and talent.

4) Improving Leadership, Management and Fiscal Effi-ciency of Schools at All Levels: recruiting the most able can-didates to become principals and administrators (includingprincipal incentive programs), improving the training and eval-uation of prospective and current school administrators.

5) Implementing Strict Quality Controls and RewardingProductivity: evaluating and rewarding schools and districtsbased on measurable performance and progress, focusing theplanning of schools and districts on instructional improvementand the effective use of resources, annual monitoring of theimplementation of the Education Improvement Program (in-cluding the Select Committee, Business-Education Partner-ship and Subcommittee, and Division of Public Accountability),authorization of intervention by state superintendent of educa-tion where quality of education in a local school district isimpaired.

6) Creating More Effective Partnerships Among theSchools, Parents, Community and Business: strengtheningthe involvement of parents, increasing the participation ofbusiness and industry in public schools, broadening commu-nity involvement in public schools.

7) Providing School Buildings Conducive to ImprovedStudent Learning: performing pressing repairs, renovationsand construction on school buildings.

Major Components and Policies of theEducation Improvement Act

Lessons for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda15

Terry Peterson—Former Executive Director of theBusiness-Education Partnership

Jo Anne Anderson—Executive Director of EducationOversight Committee

John Cooley—Deputy Superintendent, Finance andOperations, South Carolina Department of Education

William Youngblood—Former chair of the program sub-committee of the Business-Education Partnership;Managing Shareholder, McNair Attorneys

Chira, Susan, “Lessons of South Carolina: What Secre-tary May Try for U.S. Schools.” New York Times, Mar.24, 1993.

Euchner, Charlie, “South Carolina Panels Agree on Five-Year Reform Plan.” Education Week, Nov. 9, 1983.

Farrington, Carol, “An Education Report Card TaxBreaks: ‘Easy Money’ May Not Last.” The State, Jun.25, 1995.

Flax, Ellen, “Proposal to Raid S.C. Trust Fund.” Educa-tion Week, Apr. 10, 1991.

Flax, Ellen, “South Carolina Reform Drive Forges ‘GreatMarriage.’” Education Week, Sept. 13, 1989.

Hitt, Jack, “The Best Governor in America—and You’veNever Heard of Him—Richard W. Riley.”WashingtonMonthly, Oct 1986.

Peterson, T. K. (Jul 1991). School Reform in South Car-olina: Implications for Wisconsin’s Reform Efforts. Madi-son, WI: Wisconsin Center for Educational Policy.

Portner, Jessica, “22 School-Reform Programs on S.C.Chopping Block.” Education Week, Apr. 5, 1995.

Shreve, David, “A Decade of Difference.” State Legisla-tures, Nov. 1, 1993.

South Carolina Division of Public Accountability, “Whatis the Penny Buying for South Carolina?” 1988, 1989,1990, 1992.


Case Study Interviews Works Cited

16

Achieve, Inc.

1775 Eye Street NW, Suite 410 • Washington, DC 20006

P 202.419.1540 • F 202.828.0911 • www.achieve.org

taking root - south carolina's lessons for sustaining the college- and career-ready agenda

Documents

high school education

high school standards

state revenues

high school diploma

takingfour college

sustainingthe college

heavy state

career readiness action