Education Review: School Facilities

On Jan. 9, I traveled to Columbia for an article on representatives of Dillon School District 2 presenting evidence of the district’s efforts to improve the professional development, curriculum and facilities at J.V. Martin Junior High School, to members of the State Board of Education.

Dillon 2 Superintendent Ray Rogers and other district administrators met with the board to prove to them that the disitrict has, in fact, been able to address some of the facility issues at J.V. Martin. The school, which was built in 1896, is known as the oldest public school in the state still in use.

I was a little tired of hearing some of the remarks made by some people attending the meeting.

First, let me give you a little background.

In August, the State Board of Education unanimously approved state Superintendent of Education Dr. Jim Rex’s recommendation not to declare a state of emergency and take control of J.V. Martin.
During that meeting, Rex recommended an on-site team visit the school before the start of classes to confirm the improvements described at the August meeting were completed; the school would have announced and unannounced monitoring visits to look at the conditions there; and the school administrators would verify and validate the school’s security provisions.
The school was in danger of being taken over after an External Review Team (ERT) from the state Department of Education saw recommendations from a previous visit hadn’t been met.
For the past two years, J.V. Martin has received unsatisfactory ratings on its School Report Card. Last December, the ERT visited the school to determine if the school has implemented any of the ERT’s recommendations concerning building and safety conditions at the school.

The school has been featured in the documentary “Corridor of Shame: The Neglect of South Carolina’s Rural School.” The documentary shows the evidence that was presented on behalf of eight school districts in the Abbeville County School District, et. al v. The State of South Carolina, according to the documentary’s Web site, http://www.corridorofshame.com.
Dillon 2 is one of the 36 plaintiffs associated with the case. In December 2005, Third Circuit Judge Thomas Cooper ruled that state educational funding does not provide students in rural school districts the opportunity to receive a minimally adequate education because of insufficient early childhood education funding.
Cooper also ruled, however, that facilities in the eight rural plaintiff school districts are “safe and adequate” and that their curriculum standards and the teacher certification system are adequate.
Cooper later upheld his decision.

During the meeting, several board members questioned Dillon representaives about the district’s actions toward school facilities during the years and the sustainability of the district’s facility improvement plans of not only J.V. Martin, but other schools in the district.

Basically, some members wanted to know what was the district doing when this building was falling apart.

Rogers response was that the district has always done repairs as money was available. (The district recently used about $500,000 from the county’s 1-cent sales tax revenue to do repairs and renovations at J.V. Martin alone. The district will use funds from the county-wide bond referendum to build a new middle school to replace J.V. Martin. Part of J.V. Martin will be used for other administrative purposes.) He said the district has continually worked on its facilities.

Many people may feel that Rogers and the district have neglected the building.

I do understand some people when they say little items like painting could have been taken care of, but whose to say that the district didn't do these repairs?

I just wonder why no one will question the state in this matter. Where was the state all those years? How are students allowed to attend school in a 112-year-old building anyway?

Most districts will tell you that a building over 50 years old should be replaced or at least renovated. The best-case scenario would be to replace the building, but funding may be limited.

Why do we continue to point fingers? Why not do something?

Why do we think it's OK for the state to only provide for a "minimally adequate" education?

Students across the nation are required to be "Proficient," "Advanced" or "Excellent," in terms of their academics. How can you ask that of them when some students go to school in conditions that are not always conducive to learning. Whether its the classroom, the building, societal issues or family life.

Are the children of South Carolina not worth more?

Log In | Register as a new member