Blythewood Online 691

Tag: Fairfield County School District

  • Teachers’ salaries down, administrators’ up

    BLYTHEWOOD—Administrators are making more and teachers are making less in the Richland Two School District.

    In 2017-18, the average teacher salaries dropped from $52,092 to $51,802, while average administrator salaries rose from $95,003 to $96,193, the South Carolina Department of Education Report Card data shows.

    A similar trend occurred in Fairfield County School District.

    In 2017-2018, average administrator salaries were $85,575, up from $84,833 the year before, according to report card data.

    Average Fairfield County School District teacher salaries, however, declined from last year, falling from $49,504 to $49,288.

    At the Dec. 18 Fairfield County School District meeting, Dr. J.R. Green, superintendent of Fairfield County schools, said in the past year he’s forgone receiving a pay raise.

    However, when board member Paula Hartman asked Green to state his salary, Green said he didn’t know the figure. The Voice has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for that information.

    In Fairfield County, the inverse relationship between administrator and teacher pay comes as district leaders continue pressing for the creation of a Teacher Village, a proposed subdivision catering to educators.

    Affordable housing, they say, is key to recruiting and retaining teachers.

    “People who live in a home are going to stay longer than in an apartment,” said Dr. Sue Rex, chairwoman of the Fairfield education foundation, which is working with the district on the Teacher Village project.

    Fairfield County lags behind Richland Two in most teacher retention categories.

    Richland Two reported 86 percent of teachers returning from the previous year, compared to 82.6 percent in Fairfield. Richland Two (86.6 percent) also leads Fairfield (81.3 percent) in teachers returning – three year average, according to report card data.

    Finally, only 63.2 percent of Fairfield teachers are on a continuing contract, compared to 75 percent in Richland Two.

    At the Fairfield County School District’s October meeting, the board voted to appropriate $1 million from its $3.5 million surplus for salaries.

    However, the money won’t be budgeted until 2018-2019 and it includes all district employees, not just teachers. The remaining $2.5 million was earmarked to fund facility needs.

  • Is District driving Teacher Village?

    WINNSBORO – A proposed “Teacher Village” has been portrayed as primarily a function of the Fairfield County School District Education Foundation, and not the school district office.

    In reality, the district has been just as hands-on, if not more.

    Whether it’s filing startup documents, lobbying public officials or soliciting taxpayer money, district office personnel have been intimately involved in the Teacher Village, public records show.

    If approved, the Teacher Village would begin with 30 homes on 22 acres of land the district owns behind the administration building off U.S. 321 Bypass. Taxpayer money would provide rent subsidies to teachers living there.

    Gorelick Brothers Financial, a Charlotte, North Carolina firm that would build the development, is also seeking a $600,000 property tax waiver.

    Documents obtained through the state’s Freedom of Information Act show the district office has been deeply involved in creating the foundation, registering it and working hand-in-hand with the foundation on the Teacher Village.

    The symbiotic relationship between the district and foundation differs from how Dr. J.R. Green, district superintendent, described the relationship in a November 2016 interview with The Voice.

    “The School District’s Board establishes the Foundation, but after that, the District has no oversight or control over the Foundation,” Green told The Voice.

    Green couldn’t be reached for comment.

    During the school board’s October 2018 meeting, Green said the district’s only investment in the Teacher Village is providing land for the project.

    “The school district has deeded the 22 acres of land to the foundation,” Green said. “All the conversation, all the agreements and all the arrangements moving forward are between the foundation and Gorelick Brothers.”

    Others, however, think the lines are blurred between the foundation and school board.

    “It may not be your sister, but it’s your stepsister,” said Winnsboro Mayor Roger Gaddy.

    Building a Foundation

    The school district’s board of trustees voted to establish the foundation in November 2016.

    At the time, Green said the district would pay the roughly $1,000 needed to establish the foundation as a 501(c)(3) organization.

    He also told the board of trustees that he would want to appoint the foundation’s board members, but later told The Voice the foundation would elect its own officers.

    In March 2017, the district formally registered with the Secretary of State’s office, according to incorporation documents obtained by The Voice.

    Kevin Robinson, the district’s director of finance, is listed in those documents as the foundation’s original registered agent.

    Documents also show the foundation and school district share the same street address – 1226 U.S. Highway 321 Bypass South.

    Dr. Sue Rex, wife of former State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex, was appointed chair of the foundation board at the April 2017 foundation meeting, according to the minutes.

    Robinson, however, remained the registered agent until June 2017, when the district filed paperwork transferring that role to Rex.

    In 2016, when the board of trustees voted to create the foundation, Board Chairman William Frick said forming a foundation was beneficial because it would encourage donations to help fund the Teacher Village.

    At first, that’s the direction the foundation pursued.

    “Foundation board members discussed potential fundraising ideas to include a capital campaign and Go Fund me,” the April 2017 minutes state.

    Minutes in subsequent meetings show the foundation actively discussed working with Fairfield County and S.C. Uplift Community Outreach in seeking state and federal grant opportunities.

    The September 2017 minutes state BB&T expressed interest in the Teacher Village, and there were also detailed discussions about HUD grants. However, the latter option proved to be a challenge.

    “After talking with lending institutions, we realized the only way we could put together the project was with HUD money,” Rex said during an October presentation to Fairfield County Council.

    HUD has a $64,000 cap per household, which would eliminate virtually any teacher with a working spouse.

    “The only problem with HUD money is there’s a limit on how much people in that household can earn in order to live there,” Rex said. “HUD housing isn’t really going to work for us.”

    District seeks taxpayer help

    There wasn’t any public mention of taxpayer support for the Teacher Village until Green mentioned it during a recent County Council meeting.

    On Oct. 22, under questioning from Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas, Green acknowledged taxpayer money would subsidize $300 in monthly rent reductions for teachers living in the village.

    “I’m interested in how you plan to rent these houses for no more than $600 to $900 a month. It seems low for what the tenants would be getting based on the square footage,” Douglas said. “How will the houses be rented for rates this low? Is it possible the school district will be subsidizing the rental fees?”

    Green said the subsidies come from a proviso state lawmakers inserted into the state budget, which is mostly supported by state income taxes.

    The proviso allocates millions of dollars to the S.C. Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention & Advancement, or CERRA.

    In 2017-2018, CERRA received $9.5 million via the proviso. The rest of its nearly $19 million budget came from other expenditures, according to the organization’s annual report.

    Jane Turner, executive director of CERRA, said she and Green have discussed using state funds for the Teacher Village.

    Turner said the district has previously requested funds from CERRA, but not for the Teacher Village. She and Green have discussed the Teacher Village, though.

    “It [the Teacher Village] is an appropriate use of the funds,” she said. “They haven’t yet requested funds. I’ve talked to the superintendent briefly about it.”

    Turner said a special formula is used to determine a district’s allocation. Using that formula, she said the district is eligible to receive $150,600.

    “There’s just a form that has to be filled out and sent to my organization and I approve it if it’s an appropriate allocation,” Turner said.

    Green, Rex and Gorelick

    With HUD eliminated as an option to fund the Teacher Village, the foundation turned to the private sector.

    Rex said that’s when she was introduced to Gorelick Brothers, which was willing to fund most of the project – with a catch.

    Gorelick would front $3 million of the $3.6 million necessary to build the Teacher Village. In exchange, it wanted a $600,000, seven-year tax abatement. That would require a County Council vote to establish a multicounty business park.

    Green said the foundation has been handling most of the discussions with Gorelick, though the district and foundation have both relayed Gorelick’s request to the county.

    “We’re just advocating on behalf of the investor at this point in time,” he said.

    As for the development itself, Green said the district has been handling efforts to get the Teacher Village property rezoned from commercial to residential.

    “The school district is attempting to rezone the property before it’s transferred,” to the foundation, Green said. “So a formal request will come from the school district relating to the zoning.”

    Both Green and Rex have been meeting with Fairfield County staff and elected leaders, privately and publicly.

    The most recent meeting between the government agencies occurred last month in which the county voiced concerns with the multicounty business park request.

    Council Chairman Billy Smith told Green and Rex if the county approves the business park before the Teacher Village property is rezoned, he wants Gorelick to agree to an indemnification clause to shield the county from legal liabilities.

    Green said Monday night was the first he’d heard of the indemnification clause, though Rex and Smith said they’ve been discussing it.

    “In terms of this indemnification clause, it’s the first that I’ve heard that,” Green said.

    “Let me just say this, I’ve never spoken to anyone at Gorelick directly. The communication I’ve had has been with Dr. Rex,” Smith replied. “I’m sure she will tell you that we’ve discussed that a number of times for two plus weeks now, the idea of indemnification.”

    “I have brought that up to Gorelick,” Rex affirmed. “They know you’re asking that. They haven’t responded about it.”

  • County, District cite ‘Village’ legal issues

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County Council wants several conditions met before agreeing to participate in a school district project to build a subdivision in Winnsboro catering to teachers.

    School leaders, however, say they fear delaying action could cause Gorelick Brothers Capital, a Charlotte, North Carolina developer willing to bankroll most of the project, to walk.

    At a special meeting Monday, county and school leaders found little common ground regarding the “Teacher Village,” a $3.6 million subdivision the district wants built on property the district currently owns behind the district office off U.S. 321 Bypass.

    Dr. J.R. Green, superintendent of the Fairfield County School District (right), argues in favor of the proposed “teacher village” during a special county meeting Monday night. Looking on at left is a County Administrator Jason Taylor. | Michael Smith

    The district wants a multicounty business park agreement in place and a seven-year, $600,000 property tax abatement for the developer. Both require County Council approval.

    Citing a litany of potential legal issues, county attorney Tommy Morgan called attention to a pending lawsuit challenging a similar project involving multifamily housing in downtown Columbia.

    “We don’t know if this case in Richland County is going to be upheld, if it’s going to be overturned. It’s still going. I don’t know,” Morgan said.

    Morgan also alluded to a 2010 attorney general opinion that raised further doubts as to whether the county would be protected if similar litigation were filed over the Teacher Village.

    “It does give some cause for concern in my mind whether the special source revenue credit agreement would be the best way to accomplish what I understand the school district is wanting to do,” Morgan continued.

    Dr. J.R. Green, district superintendent, brushed off concerns about potential litigation.

    As to the Columbia case, Green doesn’t think the appeal will succeed, stating that Columbia is moving forward with another housing project targeting law enforcement and teachers.

    “Personally I think it is highly unlikely that it is going to be overturned on appeal,” Green said. “Obviously, in Richland County, they have not been deterred by this appeal that has occurred.

    “I disagree if the sentiment is that the county doesn’t want to move forward because there is an appeal or there is a case that has been previously judged,” Green continued.

    Morgan and Council Chairman Billy Smith also asked if it’s possible for the district to work out its own credit agreement with Gorelick, paying for $600,000 outright, bypassing the county altogether.

    William Halligan, an attorney representing the district, said only the county can approve or deny multicounty park agreements. The district cannot do it, he said.

    “Nowhere in [the law] do we have the legal right to pay a third party not relating to buildings of the school district,” Halligan said. “We pay teachers, but we can’t buy their food and we can’t pay for their housing.”

    Procedural and zoning issues represent added concerns for the county.

    Smith said the county hasn’t received any formal requests from Gorelick, only from the Fairfield County Schools’ Education Foundation, a proxy of the school district.

    The land also remains in the district’s name, Smith noted.

    No site plan has been submitted to the Town of Winnsboro for rezoning, and there has been no request to the Town for rezoning.

    “All of that are steps that have to be undertaken, whether it’s by the school district, the foundation or Gorelick Brothers,” Morgan said. “There has to be these steps with regard to the property before it can even be considered by the county whether it needs to be included in a multicounty industrial park.”

    “I don’t think that’s accurate,” Green responded. “You’re telling me the property has to be rezoned before it’s considered for a multicounty project.”

    Morgan replied by saying the Teacher Village can’t be a Gorelick project when the land is still in the district’s name.

    Teacher Village conditions set

    Filed in 2016, a Richland County lawsuit that also names Columbia and Fairfield County as codefendants, states that a student housing development was improperly included in another multicounty business and industrial park.

    Fairfield County partnered with Richland County and the City of Columbia in that park agreement.

    “I had similar concerns about that project and I raised them at the time. Ultimately, Council approved that deal because the developer agreed to indemnification– to pay for any legal fallout,” Smith told The Voice after the meeting. “That’s all I’ve requested on this project to that point, but it seems like we’re being asked to bear all of the risk in this project. We’re being asked to follow the framework from the previous deal in every way except for the indemnification.”

    A circuit judge sided with the counties and City of Columbia, though the suit has been appealed to the S.C. Court of Appeals.

    “There has been caution presented to us based on the case in Columbia,” Council Chairman Billy Smith said during the meeting. “If we would be the ones to accept the risk for what many of us see as a school district project, then there are some conditions that we’d like to talk about.”

    Thumbing through his phone, Smith read a list of conditions he’d like met regarding the Teacher Village:

    An agreement with Gorelick to indemnify Fairfield County in the Teacher Village project

    An agreement to cover Fairfield’s legal expenses incurred in association with the Teacher Village

    A legal description of the Teacher Village property

    The Town of Winnsboro agreeing to place the property into the multicounty park since it’s in the town limits

    Winnsboro agreeing to rezone the property

    “If they don’t rezone the property as requested, it’s over with,” Smith said. “It doesn’t make much sense for us to spend good money on something when we’re not sure whether it has a chance of happening.”

    School officials took issue with Smith’s proposed conditions. Green called them “not reasonable,” and voiced concerns that Gorelick Brothers may walk.

    “If that’s the takeaway, that’s not reasonable,” Green said of Smith’s conditions. “I don’t know how Gorelick is going to respond to this. The longer this stretches out, the more the likelihood Gorelick pulls out.”

    Asked after the meeting about Green’s contention that the conditions being unreasonable, Smith said, “What’s unreasonable is to ask someone else to bear all of the risk for a project that is yours and that primarily benefits you. I realize the potential of this, and I’d like to support it in some way, but I’m not going to allow the County to be the only entity involved accepting risk. If it were our project, I wouldn’t expect the School District to accept all of the risk for it.”

    The Teacher Village, as proposed, calls for building up to 70 single family homes on 22 acres behind the district office, starting with 30 homes and building more if the development takes off.

    Teachers would be given first priority and would receive a taxpayer subsidized credit of $300, reducing their rent to the $600 to $900 per month range, depending on the home.

    District office staff would receive second preference, followed by law enforcement and first responders. Only teachers, though, would qualify for the credit.

    School and foundation leaders have said the Teacher Village is vital in recruiting and retaining teachers by providing them with affordable, attractive housing that generally doesn’t exist in Fairfield County.

    “People who live in a home are going to stay longer than in an apartment,” said Dr. Sue Rex, chairwoman of the Fairfield education foundation. “This is going to bring a lot of energy to Fairfield County.”

    A video of the Nov. 28 meeting in its entirety is available on The Voice’s Facebook page.

  • Teacher Village lacking site plan

    WINNSBORO – As Fairfield County school officials press forward with plans to build a subdivision catering to teachers on property it owns behind the district office, those plans appear to be stymied until the property is rezoned. But the district has not yet submitted the required site plan for that rezoning to be initiated, according to Town of Winnsboro officials.

    School district officials are seeking to rezone the property from C-2, which allows commercial uses, to a residential zoning classification to accommodate single family detached dwellings, Winnsboro Zoning Director Billy Castles said.

    But Castles said it is not possible to determine what zoning the school should apply for until it submits a site plan.

    “That site plan must comply with the zoning district. We can’t change zoning to comply with the site plan,” Castles said.

    Castles added that the very limited discussion about the Teacher’s Village has primarily been with the school district, not the Fairfield County Education Foundation which initiated and is coordinating the project.  Castles noted the district as of Tuesday had only submitted preliminary drawings, not a site plan, for the Village.

    “What the district submitted was not materially sufficient (for determining zoning),” Castles said.

    “The site plan must include details about the development, such as lot size, setback measurements, where the homes are to be located on the lots, water and sewer infrastructure, street paving, curbing and other technical details,” Castles said.

    The Winnsboro Planning Commission was scheduled to discuss the Teacher Village at a meeting Wednesday after The Voice went to press.

    “This workshop will hopefully explain exactly what they [district officials] need to do for their site plan to comply with the zoning,” Castle said.

    Once a site plan is submitted, the approval process after that could take between eight and 12 weeks, Castles estimated. That time frame, he said, does not include other prerequisite steps, such as providing stormwater solutions and subdividing lots for tax purposes, functions falling to other county and state agencies.

    “This is strictly a zoning issue for us,” Castles said. “It has nothing to do with approval or disapproval of the project.”

    Skeptism grows

    Winnsboro Mayor Roger Gaddy said he hasn’t formed an opinion about the proposed “Teacher Village,” but he does have concerns.

    “I don’t know how providing education for the children of Fairfield County morphed into a real estate development and home rentals,” Gaddy said.

    “My impression was the purpose of the school district is to educate our children and prepare them for higher education,” Gaddy added. “I have concerns that we’re diverting our focus from education to real estate.”

    Dr. J.R. Green, district superintendent, has said the teacher village has two primary purposes – to recruit and retain more teachers and also to encourage economic development.

    “If you live in Columbia, you drive by 15 schools every day. It’s harder to retain people if they are constantly traveling from Lexington, Columbia or Rock Hill,” Green told Fairfield County Council members on Oct. 22.

    “Imagine 70 people living here making $50,000 a year,” Green added. “That’s a $3 million impact to our community, people going to our restaurants, going to our grocery stores, going to our pharmacies.”

    At Monday night’s council meeting, Fairfield County residents speaking during public input held a different view.

    One of them was Lake Wateree resident Jeff Morris, who said even if the Teacher Village fills with teachers, only a small percentage of Fairfield teachers would actually be living there.

    Morris also questioned the motives of hedge fund owners, who in exchange for a seven-year tax abatement, would finance and maintain the development.

    “It would seem to me that if these properties do not house teachers or first responders, then the abatement shouldn’t be available,” he said. “Otherwise we’re giving a public benefit for a private enterprise for no return to the public. I would urge you to be very careful about how you agree to that.”

    Ridgeway resident Randy Bright agreed.

    “The first speaker on the teacher village was spot on. You should be very, very cautious,” Bright said, emphasizing the second ‘very.’

    As proposed, the Teacher Village would be built on 11 acres of land the district owns behind the district office off U.S. 321 Bypass in Winnsboro.

    The idea is to provide low cost housing for teachers, with rents ranging from $600 to $900 a month. However, only teachers would qualify for the discounted rents, made possible through taxpayer funded subsidies from the state.

    If the development isn’t fully populated with teachers, housing would become available to district office staff, followed by first responders. They would not qualify for the subsidy and would pay $900 to $1,200 a month in rent, district officials have said.

    The Teacher Village property is part of a larger parcel that also includes the district office. The district acquired the land from the S.C. Department of Transportation, which deeded the land to the district in 2013 for $5, according to Fairfield County property records.

  • Bell, Gilbert win County Council seats

    No surprises in school, Dist. 41 races

    WINNSBORO – Even though Fairfield County logged an impressive 61.24 percent voter turnout Tuesday, there was little evidence that voters were looking for a change in the direction of the county’s governments.

    All the county council and school district incumbents were returned to their seats with the exception of County Councilman Dan Ruff (District 1) who was edged out by Moses Bell with 651 votes (53.98 percent) to Ruff’s 546 votes (45.27 percent). There were nine write-in votes (.75 percent).

    In county council races, the other new face to emerge from Tuesday’s election is Clarence Gilbert who replaces District 7’s County Council Chairman Billy Smith. Smith, who announced in June that he would not seek re-election after his term ends on Dec. 31, said he will be moving to Baton Rouge, LA where his wife, Rachel, is a professor at Louisiana State University.

    Gilbert, with 400 votes (40.77 percent), bested two opponents – Lisa Brandenburg with 356 votes (36.16 percent) and Jana Childers with 197 votes (20.08 percent). There were 29 write-in votes (2.96 percent).

    Incumbent Mikel Trapp, Sr. retained his District 3 county council seat with 618 votes (58.19 percent) over challenger Peggy Swearingen’s 439 votes (41.34 percent). There were five write-in votes (.47 percent) in that race.

    Incumbent Doug Pauley, District 5, won by the largest margin of all the county council candidates with 586 votes (66.47 percent) over Matthew Seibles, Jr. with 304 votes (33.97 percent) and five write-in votes (.56 percent).

    In the school board election, all four incumbents were returned to their seats.

    Incumbent Sylvia Harrison, District 1, captured 796 votes (65.89 percent) to turn back her challenger, Elliott Qualls with 397 votes (32.86 percent) and 15 write-in votes (1.24 percent).

    With 621 votes (56.20 percent), District 7 school board incumbent Darreyl Davis fought off opponent Herb Rentz who had 470 votes (42.53 percent). It was the second time this year Davis and Rentz had run for the seat. Davis defeated Rentz in February in a bid to serve out the last few months of Board Chairwoman Beth Reid’s term that was cut short by her death last winter.  There were 14 write-in votes in the Tuesday race.

    School board incumbents for District 3, Henry Miller, and District 5, Carl Jackson, were challenged only by write-ins. Miller received 773 votes (98.36 percent) with 13 write-in votes (1.65 percent), and Jackson received 756 votes (97.95 percent) with 16 write-in votes (2.05 percent).

    McDaniel

    In the race for the District 41 House seat currently held by MaryGail Douglas who was defeated by Annie McDaniel in the June Democratic Primary, McDaniel received 5,923 votes (74.63 percent) to United Citizen’s candidate Fred Kennedy’s 1,941 votes (24.46 percent). There were 73 write-in votes (.92 percent) in the race.

    Sixth Circuit Solicitor Randy Newman, Jr. was unopposed Tuesday, taking 4,563 votes (97.42), with 121 write-in votes.

    Claudia Dean won the race for the Rocky Creek Watershed, with 40 votes (50.63 percent) over William Wishert with 37 votes (46.84 percent).

    In uncontested county races:

    County Treasurer Norma Branham, 7,975

    County Auditor Peggy Hensley, 7,682

    Probate Judge Pam Renwick, 7,793

    Soil and Water District Commission, Eric Cathcart, 4,422

    Jackson Mill Watershed and Wateree Creek Watershed – Write-in results not available at press time.

    All results are unofficial until certified by the County Election Commission Friday morning.

  • FCHS gains 60 points on SAT, lags behind SC

    WINNSBORO — Fairfield Central High School saw a noticeable increase from 2017 in its SAT results, leaping more than 60 points, according to figures released last week by the S.C. Department of Education.

    Only one in five Fairfield County seniors, however, took the SAT in 2018, and those who did take the test averaged more than 80 points below the state average.

    In 2018, Fairfield’s average SAT score rose from 922 to 983. Forty-one of 198 seniors, or 20.7 percent, took the test, about the same as last year, state data shows.

    Fairfield’s performance still fell 81 points behind the state average of 1,064. The national average was 1,049.

    Dr. J.R. Green, district superintendent, couldn’t be reached for comment Tuesday.

    In a prior interview with The Voice about the impact of per pupil revenues on student achievement, Green said that rural districts like Fairfield, where poverty tends to be high, tend to struggle academically.

    He also noted student achievement is measured in more ways than how students score on standardized tests.

    “The reality is there are students who can be successful, but not at a four-year institution,” Green told The Voice. “It doesn’t mean these kids aren’t sufficient. Poverty has an adverse affect on a kids’ ability to be successful academically.”

    Fifteen miles away at Blythewood High School, students averaged 1,048, scoring a point shy of the state average, but also shedding 10 points from last year’s school tally of 1,058.

    Blythewood’s tally this year was the second highest in Richland 2. Spring Valley High School led the district at 1,098.

    At nearby Westwood High School, seniors averaged 970, creeping up four points from 966 last year, state data shows.

    “As the district’s total score is below the state average, we recognize there is room for growth and are committed to helping our students better prepare for this assessment,” district spokeswoman Libby Roof said via email.

    Roof said schools plan to use test results to assist in instructional planning.

    “That being said, these assessments don’t provide teachers with the standard or strand-level results that are needed to make informed instructional decisions,” she said.

    “Additionally, we avoid using SAT scores as a measure to compare our schools to each other,” Roof continued. “The SAT is designed to gauge a student’s readiness to perform college level work. It is used by colleges and universities to compare the academic readiness of students and to make admission decisions.”

    In one statistic of note, a large percentage of Blythewood seniors took the SAT.

    Blythewood High placed in the top 20 statewide at 71.1 percent, ranking 16th out of 230 schools, with 335 of 471 seniors taking the test, figures show.

    “Students in the Class of 2018 and their parents decided whether or not to take the SAT,” Roof said. “We don’t have any data that would indicate why a greater percentage of students in one school chose to take the SAT than in another school.”

    In tabulating SAT data, the Department of Education counted individual students only once, regardless of how many times they took the test. The most recent score was counted, figures show.

    Accurate data comparisons to 2016 and before were not possible because the College Board, which administers the test, changed the format in 2017.

    In 2017, the College Board, which administers the SAT, revised the test to score in two critical areas – evidence-based reading and writing, or ERW, and math, according to the Department of Education website.

    The ERW portion replaced the English/Language Arts and Writing sections, which gave the SAT three components, the website states.

    The test became a two-part test in 2017, broken down into Evidence-based Reading and Writing and Math.

    In 2016, Fairfield averaged 1,306 on the three-part test while the state averaged 1,484.

  • Rent cost, no contract muddle ‘village’

    WINNSBORO – Taxpayer money, not previously mentioned by the Fairfield County School District Foundation, will help subsidize a ‘teacher village,’ a proposed residential development intended to attract and retain teachers in the District, should the plan move forward.

    Under questioning by Council members, Foundation and District officials also confirmed that they do not yet have a contract, executed or proposed, with the village investor. That did not sit well with some Council members who are being asked to approve a multi-county park agreement as well as a seven-year tax refund benefiting the investor.

    In multiple public and private pitches, Superintendent Dr. J. R. Green and Fairfield School District Education Foundation Chairman Sue Rex have said first priority for the housing would go to teachers, who would pay between $600 – $900 a month to rent the homes, which are between 1,200 and 1,600 square feet.

    District office staff, followed by first responders, could also be allowed to live in the community. After that, others in the community could be accepted as renters.

    During County Council questioning on Monday night, however, it was learned that actual rental fees would range from $900 – $1,300, not $600 – $900 a month.

    “I’m interested in how you plan to rent these houses for no more than $600 to $900 a month. It seems low for what the tenants would be getting based on the square footage,” Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas said.

    “How will the houses be rented for rates this low?” Douglas asked. “Is it possible the school district will be subsidizing the rental fees?”

    Green answered in the affirmative. He said a proviso in the state budget includes funds that school districts can use to recruit teachers. The district would have the ability, Green said, to subsidize each home up to $300 per month, for a total of $108,000 of District subsidies each year.

    “We plan to utilize our funding to help reduce the rental rates,” Green said. “We will be supplementing those rates with that retention and recruitment funding. They are looking for a school district to do some innovative things with those funds.”

    State lawmakers inserted the proviso that Green referenced into the 2016 state budget, with funding going to the S.C. Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention & Advancement, or CERRA, legislative records show.

    CERRA received $1.5 million in 2016. Since then, the appropriation has zoomed to $9.5 million in 2017 and 2018, according to CERRA’s 2017-2018 annual report.

    Per the proviso, CERRA’s job is to help districts with teacher turnover of 11 percent or more over the past 5 years to boost teacher recruitment and retention. Fairfield County is among those districts.

    In 2017-2018, CERRA spent $12.97 million on its teacher recruitment program, accounting for a majority of its $18.95 million in total expenditures, its annual report states. Fairfield County School District received the third highest allotment, totaling close to $738,000, of all districts drawing from the fund.

    Council Chairman Billy Smith asked Green if the proviso money is permanent or if it might not be continued in the future, citing the State Legislature’s budgeting discretion. Green suggested the proviso could be built into the state budget after, perhaps, three or four years, but that is no guarantee.

    Council member response to the teacher village varied during Monday night’s meeting.

    Councilman Douglas Pauley asked several questions, including whether teachers living elsewhere in the county would receive the $300 rent subsidy as well. Green said they would not.

    Pauley also asked about whether the district has looked at other builders or financiers.

    Green said they had not. He also said Gorelick is willing to cover the $3.6 million in construction costs, and had the ability to choose the builder on their own.

    Green went on to repeat a district talking point that, in addition to recruiting teachers, the village would spur economic development.

    Green said Fairfield was the first District to be implementing this kind of teacher housing project and he wanted to have it ready to go by the start of the 2019 school year. He said other districts are beginning to look into doing something similar.

    While council members generally praised the District for thinking creatively about ways to recruit and retain teachers, Smith stated that Council would need more documentation and specifics about the project before taking any votes.

    As proposed, the Fairfield County “teacher village” would be built on 11 acres of land the district owns behind the district office off U.S. 321 Bypass in Winnsboro. There are tentative plans for a second phase on the other 11 acres.

    Rex, the foundation’s director, emphasized that the multi-county business park must be approved by the County to move the project forward.

    “We want to put together a template that works so beautifully that the school district, foundation, the county council, the private investors can work together to put this project into place and make it successful,” Rex said.

    Before moving forward, the district also must seek approval from the Town of Winnsboro to rezone the teacher village property, a process that could take up to six weeks.

    Councilman Dan Ruff said he’s encouraged by the teacher village’s possibilities.

    “I want to commend you and the foundation for your creative thinking in this process,” Ruff said. “I think it is fantastic and I hope it works out.”

  • Board budgets $3.5M surplus

    BLAIR – As Fairfield County school leaders seek $600,000 in tax breaks for a developer of a proposed teacher housing development, the district committed to spending $3.5 million in anticipated surplus funds on facility needs and salaries.

    At its monthly meeting Tuesday, the Fairfield County Board of Trustees voted 5-2 to appropriate the funds, with $2.5 million going to facilities, while $1 million was earmarked for salaries, though pay increases won’t come until 2019-2020.

    Board members Annie McDaniel and Paula Hartman dissented.

    McDaniel, a frequent critic of employee pay, said she only opposed the motion because she thought the district isn’t doing enough to increase pay.

    “I am happy that we put some money for salaries, but I am a little disappointed that we still have some people making $13,000, $14,000 [a year],” McDaniel said. “Do we have any money in the budget for bonuses?”

    Dr. J.R. Green, district superintendent, said the budget includes enough money for $200 holiday bonuses for every employee, the same as last year.

    McDaniel thought the bonus should be higher, but only for lower paid employees. Her motion to amend the original motion to approve the $3.5 million called for a $500 bonus for every employee making less than $20,000. The motion died due to a lack of a second.

    Green said the $1 million would be placed into the general fund for the 2019-2020 budget. He said the district is preparing a “very substantial salary proposal” for next year, but didn’t disclose specifics.

    Setting aside $1 million now would provide some financial wiggle room when the time comes to implement the proposal, he said.

    “We are preparing for a very, very robust salary proposal,” Green said.

    “I understand robust, Dr. Green, but what about equity and fairness?” McDaniel responded. “$13,000? Come on, really?

    “I’m not sorry that I put it [the motion] on the floor,” McDaniel continued. “I’m sorry that you people don’t care about people who make $13,000.”

    Board secretary Sylvia Harrison said she’s not against higher bonuses, but thought bonuses should be uniform for all employees.

    “If you’re going to give it to some, I say give it to all,” Harrison said.

    Staff also recommended appropriating $2.5 million to the district’s capital projects fund to pay for various facility needs, according to board documents.

    Leading the laundry list of items was field turf at $615,000, followed by security upgrades at $300,000. The district also plans to spend $200,000 on each of the following projects: bathroom upgrades, computer and Chromebook replacements, and auditorium seating.

    Other facility needs listed in board documents included playground equipment and rubber mulch, fencing and a new scoreboard.

    In other business, the board received an update on the proposed “Teacher Village,” a proposal to build teacher housing on 22 acres behind the district off U.S. 321 Bypass in Winnsboro.

    Green said he wanted to clarify comments made during the September board meeting. He noted that $600,000 of the estimated $3.6 million price tag consists of tax abatements that would be awarded the developer.

    “The tax incentive will provide about $600,000 over a seven-year period,” Green said. “It’s not that the school district or the county needs to come up with money on the front end.”

    Fairfield County has not said whether or not it will agree to grant a tax abatement. School officials presented the teacher village proposal to a county subcommittee Monday, and also plan to address County Council on Monday, Oct. 22.

  • Teacher Village to cost $3.6M

    WINNSBORO – A housing project proposed by the Fairfield County school district aims to keep teachers – along with their salaries – within Fairfield County.

    But for the plan to move forward, school officials say the county must also pitch in with tax incentives.

    Dubbed a “teacher village,” the approximately $3.6 million project is designed to build at least 30 homes off U.S. 321 Bypass, on 22 acres behind the district administration building.

    The purpose is to attract and retain high quality teachers by providing housing that’s affordable and attractive, said Sue Rex, chairwoman of the Fairfield County Education Foundation.

    “We have a major teacher shortage in our state, and especially in the rural districts,” Rex said during a presentation at the Sept. 19 school board meeting. “It’s far to drive to the school districts, and there are not a lot of affordable, attractive housing arrangements available.”

    No votes were taken on the teacher village.

    According to the plan, an investment company would front $3 million of the required revenue. The remaining $600,000 would come from seven-year tax abatements requested of the school district and county.

    When asked why abating county taxes for a school district project is necessary, Superintendent Dr. J.R. Green noted the district doesn’t receive any tax revenues from fee in lieu of tax agreement the county creates to attract industry.

    It’s only fair, he said, that the county contribute.

    “The school district can’t do it all,” Green said. “It needs to be done in conjunction with the county.”

    Green said he’s spoken to several council members individually, and that they’re supportive of the idea. He declined to name them.

    In exchange for the investment firm providing capital, the school district would also deed the 22 acres to the developer. The land coupled with the tax abatements would be the school district’s only liabilities, Green said.

    Thirty homes would be built on half of the parcel, with 30 to 40 additional homes possible on the other 11 acres.

    If only half the property is developed, the undeveloped half would consist of nature trails and green space, Rex said.

    Should the plan moves forward, teachers would be given first priority in the village, where rent would range from $600 to $900 a month.

    District office staff would come next, followed potentially by Fairfield County first responders.

    Homes would feature two, three and four bedrooms, and be between 1,200 and 1,700 square feet, Green said.

    “We’re talking about granite countertops, we’re talking about wood floors,” he said. “We’re talking about very nice homes our staff would be very excited about living in. This takes it to another level.”

    Board members, including Henry Miller, were generally in favor of the teacher village. Miller said Fairfield County’s population has been stagnant for years, but thinks the village could be a catalyst for growth.

    “We have to step outside of the box. I ask, how can Lexington land all these different jobs? Its recruitment, it’s a competition,” Miller said. “Nobody is going to give you anything, you’ve got to go out and snatch it.”

    Board Chairman William Frick said other school districts are pursuing teacher villages, though he said Fairfield’s is the most ambitious.

    Frick noted that Dillon County is doing something similar with duplexes, while Allendale County is providing dorm spaces for teachers at USC Salkehatchie.

    “I’m not talking about fancy dorm rooms at [the University of South] Carolina. I’m talking about teeny, little twin beds, and they’re charging those people $500 a month and they’re filled,” Frick said of the USC Salkehatchie rooms.

    “Dillon County is investing in duplexes and they’re getting people there,” Frick continued. “I think it’s something a lot more school districts are going to get involved in.”

    Not every board member was sold, however.

    Board member Paula Hartman wanted to know what happens if homes aren’t built for educators as advertised.

    Frick and Green said language could be written into the deed in which the property would revert to the district if homes weren’t built, though Green acknowledged that solution isn’t a certainty.

    “That’s something that we would have to continue to negotiate,” Green said. “Once we transfer land, they understand what our motivations are, which are to provide housing for our staff members as well as first responders.”

    Frick viewed the project as a traditional economic development deal.

    “I think that’s how economic development works,” Frick said. “They draw up fee in lieu of [tax] agreements and tax abatements to draw people there. This is simply an economic development project, it appears, to me.”

    Hartman raised additional concerns about setting a precedent for future developers. She also worried the tax abatement would negatively impact the district and county.

    “There is a risk to the children because the money is not going to be there,” she said. “I don’t see how the school board can do that, or the county for that matter.”

    Green said aside from the 22 acres, the district has virtually nothing to lose.

    “Right now we aren’t collecting any taxes because there are no properties,” he said. “We are not foregoing anything that we are currently receiving.”

  • FCSD per pupil revenue highest in state

    WINNSBORO – There’s no apparent shortage of revenue flowing into the Fairfield County school district.

    A recent S.C. Department of Education report estimates the Fairfield school district is projected to receive $21,803 in per pupil revenues in 2017-2018, the highest in South Carolina.

    Clarendon 1 came second at $19,137, followed by Richland 1 ($18,791) and McCormick ($18,139). The state average was $13,214, according to the report.

    Fairfield revenues have steadily risen since 2013-2014, when they were $18,023 per pupil.

    In addition, more than 200 fewer students are enrolled today than four years ago. Per pupil revenue still rose despite enrollment that fell from 2,652 to 2,421, records show.

    Figures in the report are based on estimates that were current as of Sept. 6, 2017. They do not reflect bond revenues, which would exclude the district’s $20 million bond issue in 2013 to build a new career center.

    “Projections for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 are estimates based upon recent and historical trends in local, state, and federal funding and are subject to revision,” the Department of Education website states.

    “These figures include revisions made since the adoption of the [2017] Appropriation Act,” the website continues. “Please note that pupil estimates are based on 135-day enrollment figures for K5-12 and do not include 4 year olds.”

    While year-to-year funding has consistently hit new plateaus in Fairfield, student achievement has not.

    The school district has reported generally favorable graduations rates of 90 percent or higher since 2015, greater than the 84.6 percent state average, according to Department of Education report card data.

    Between 2012 and 2014, the district averaged between 76.6 and 80.8 percent, trailing state averages at the time.

    Fairfield, however, substantially lags in the number of students seeking two- or four-year college degrees, data shows.

    In 2016, less than half (48.9 percent) of Fairfield graduates pursued post-secondary study, far behind the state average of 70.8, according to 2017 report cards, the most recent available.

    Fairfield’s college enrollment rate plunged to 37.2 percent in 2014, report card shows.

    District Superintendent Dr. J.R. Green said student success is measured in different ways.

    “It’s not as simple as saying if you spend a certain amount of money, you get a certain amount of results,” he said. “We’re investing in every way we can to move the achievement needle.

    “The reality is there are students who can be successful, but not at a four-year institution,” Green continued. “It doesn’t mean these kids aren’t sufficient. Poverty has an adverse affect on a kids’ ability to be successful academically.”

    The Department of Education report comes amid public criticism from one Fairfield County council member who recently questioned the amount of tax revenues the district receives.

    During the Sept. 10 council meeting, Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas publicly stated from the dais that the district has improperly received more than $11 million in tax revenues, attributing the overages to inflated millage rates.

    Green has vociferously denied the district received any windfalls.

    He did, however, say per pupil revenues don’t paint a full picture of district revenue streams.

    Green said while Fairfield is a high-poverty county, the district is unique from other struggling South Carolina districts in that it receives substantial boost via the V.C. Summer nuclear plant.

    “We are exceptional in that we have a nuclear facility that funds $1 out of every $2 in support of our students. If the nuclear plant didn’t exist, we’d be in extremely poor shape.”

    Green said revenues pay not only for educational expenses, but also capital improvements and other non-instructional costs.

    He noted that some Fairfield per pupil revenues are actually spent in neighboring Chester County, per a Supreme Court ruling that requires the school district to pay about $3,542 in local funds for every student in the Mitford community who attends school in Chester County.

    The ruling impacts between 100 and 200 students.

    In 2018-2019, student transfers are expected to cost Fairfield County schools about $626,000, an increase of $74,150 over last year, according to district budget figures.