By Javar Juarez (CUBNSC) St. Andrews, SC - What began as a seemingly productive meeting of the Richland One School Board of Commissioners at Columbia High School quickly devolved into a political battlefield, leaving members of the community frustrated and dismayed. The issue at hand: the future of the Vince Ford Early Learning Center, now referred to as the Early Learning Center (ELC). The meeting showcased a stark divide on the board, with conservative commissioners opposing continued construction and expansion, despite data and testimony highlighting the urgent need for early childhood intervention.
Tonight's board meeting began on a celebratory note, recognizing the outstanding achievements of students and faculty in professional development, particularly those preparing to become first responders. Special commendations were given to Dreher High School students for their bravery after members of the track team encountered a fire emergency. Acting swiftly, they used a fire extinguisher to protect personal property and helped rescue a resident’s dog.
Students from the Heat Hunters fire training program also took the podium, sharing how the program has been instrumental in fostering camaraderie, a sense of family, and a deep commitment to community service.
A Vote Divided, a Future in Limbo
At the heart of the debate was a contentious vote split down the middle, with Commissioner Richard Moore introducing a motion to terminate the contract for the ELC’s continuation. The motion was swiftly seconded by Commissioner Ericka Hursey, signaling a troubling lack of commitment to early learning initiatives for Richland One’s youngest and most vulnerable students and those that have yet to enter the Richland One school district system. While some community members spoke against the center, citing financial concerns and broader district issues, others passionately argued for the necessity of early childhood programs, pointing to overwhelming data on the benefits of early learning for underprivileged children.
Commissioner Angela Clyburn attempted to strike a middle ground by proposing an amended motion to postpone construction rather than terminate it outright. Her reasoning was clear: the board needed more time to assess the project with all relevant data in hand, despite the project having been previously greenlit, budget allocated and data secured. However, Commissioner Dr. Aaron Bishop, echoing sentiments of many in the audience, called out what he saw as a political ploy.
"It seems like huge things have been coupled together. The idea of our making some [decisions] from outside sources has blurred the issue. People didn’t come tonight to talk about stopping procurement; they came because they know the need for this project," Bishop argued, underscoring the real stakes at hand.
A Political Football at the Expense of Children
The debate took an even uglier turn when Commissioner Ericka Hursey dismissed concerns from tax paying citizens, claiming they had no right to speak if they had no children or grandchildren in the district. Her remarks were met with sharp criticism, as many found her comments offensive and dismissive of the broader community’s stake in public education.’
Beyond the rhetoric, Commissioner Hursey’s stance raised fundamental questions about her priorities as an elected official. By suggesting that basic district maintenance issues—such as outdated welding equipment and malfunctioning freezers—should take precedence over early childhood education, she inadvertently signaled a lack of confidence in her own leadership. As Commissioner Bishop pointed out, the district has the capacity to do both: invest in early learning while also addressing other pressing concerns. The false choice between fixing infrastructure and providing foundational education for young learners is a distraction from the real issue at hand: whether or not the board is committed to the long-term success of its students.
The Case for Early Learning: Data vs. Denial
The case for expanding early childhood education is not simply anecdotal—it is backed by robust data. First Steps, a leading early education advocacy group, has long warned that many children in Richland County enter kindergarten unprepared, especially in lower-income areas such as Lower Richland and the Broad River District. Studies have shown that children from low-income backgrounds can start school with a 30-million-word deficit compared to their more affluent peers, drastically reducing their chances of academic success.
Representative Robert Reese, a South Carolina state legislator representing Lower Richland, highlighted this alarming reality during the meeting.
"We cannot allow exceptionalism to deter us from what is probably the norm. We’ve got a lot of children that are not operating at standard. We all know that to get a young person to standard, or at least give them the best opportunities, we have to allow them access to early childhood educational opportunities," Reese stated.
His argument was simple but powerful: If the state legislature and First Steps both recognize the urgent need for more early learning resources, why is the Richland One School Board standing in the way?
Reese also questioned the recent push for a forensic audit of the district, despite Richland One maintaining 36 years of clean audits. He argued that if the State Department of Education insisted on an audit, the financial burden should fall on the state, not the district.
"If they’re going to make these frivolous decisions, then the State Department of Education should pay for it," Reese asserted, calling into question the true motives behind the audit demand.
The Real Impact: A Growing Crisis in Early Education
Beyond the politics, the numbers paint a troubling picture. Richland County’s population continues to surge, with an estimated 1,500 new children born annually. However, the infrastructure to support their early education is alarmingly insufficient. In Lower Richland, for example, there are only three daycare centers, collectively capable of serving just 75 children—while thousands of new students will soon enter the school system.
The disparities are clear. Children in more affluent areas benefit from robust early learning programs, ensuring they enter school with the foundational skills they need. Meanwhile, students in historically underfunded areas are left behind, often entering kindergarten unable to recognize their own names or perform basic tasks expected of their age group.
The impact of this neglect is long-lasting. By the time these children reach the fourth or fifth grade, they are already behind their peers, struggling with self-esteem and academic achievement. Without intervention, the consequences only compound, leading to increased dropout rates, higher crime rates, and ultimately, greater societal costs.
As former Richland One Commissioner Cheryl Harris stated, "If we don’t take care of them now on the front end, we will have to take care of them later—in the prison system."
A Call to Action: Where Does Richland One Go from Here?
The question remains: Why is the board delaying and denying progress when the need is so evident? The resistance to the Early Learning Center is not just a bureaucratic roadblock—it is a moral failing. The data is clear, the demand is urgent, and the responsibility lies with those elected to serve the district’s children.
The meeting may have ended in frustration, but the fight for early childhood education in Richland One is far from over. The community has spoken, and they are watching closely. The conservative faction of the board, led by Chair Robert Lominack, Richard Moore, and Ericka Hursey, may have stalled progress tonight, but they will have to answer to the families whose children are being left behind.
The future of Richland One’s students should not be a political football. The stakes are too high, and the cost of inaction is far greater than the price of moving forward.
Will the board continue to delay and deny, or will they finally prioritize the children they were elected to serve? The answer will define the future of education in Richland One.
Comments