It looks like AdvancED will be discussed by the Wake County school board on Monday.
School board chairman Ron Margiotta has just scheduled a special called board meeting at 4 p.m. Monday at Cary High School before that evening's public hearing on the student reassignment plan. The agenda calls for a closed session to protect "attorney-client privilege," the same reason used at last week's special meeting to discuss AdvancED.
The only reason the issue wasn't discussed by the board this week was because of scheduling conflicts with board attorney Jonathan Blumberg.
The outcome of the meeting likely isn't in doubt now that board vice chairwoman Debra Goldman has announced that she's accepting AdvancED's terms for the accreditation review. Her vote means that she and the Democrats now have a majority to proceed with the review.
Don't look for school board members to have legal counsel at the meetings with AdvancED when the review team comes in February. It's possible some of the other Republican board members who objected might refuse to be interviewed, which could impact the review.
UPDATE
The meeting has now been rescheduled for 8 a.m. Tuesday at 3600 Wake Forest Road in Raleigh. It will take place before the student reassignment work session that's scheduled to begin at 9 a.m.
They've now confirmed that AdvancED will be discussed in closed session. There will be a public comment session at 8:30 a.m. on AdvancED before a potential board vote.
Comments
I wonder how much....
Sun, 01/23/2011 - 10:02 — bpuli9999This board is spending on lawyers compared to previous boards? Where would such information be available?
Don't be surprised to find a
Sun, 01/23/2011 - 10:10 — willynillyDon't be surprised to find a dead end to that one. I tried to find out some facts and figures about something along those lines 2 years ago. There is really nowhere to find those figures with the exception of some numbers of legal costs that are buried in a large buget readout.
Mr Hui?
Sat, 01/22/2011 - 16:07 — AngelaWyou said in another thread that you had talked to DPI about accreditation? to whom? their legal people?
because what was said, if anything, about this policy? (bolded emphasis is mine)
Policy Manual
Policy Identification
Priority: Globally Competitive Students
Category: Accreditation
Policy ID Number: GCS-B-000
Policy Title: Policy for public and non-public school accreditation programs
Current Policy Date: 11/05/1998
Other Historical Information: Previous board dates: 09/01/1994, 03/05/1998
Statutory Reference: GS 115C-12
Administrative Procedures Act (APA) Reference Number and Category:
Local school administrative units will be accredited based on their performance in the ABCs of Public Education. The accreditation status will be determined annually as follows:
-upon the identification of more than half of the schools in a local school administrative unit as low-performing under G.S. 115C-105.30, the local school administrative unit will be designated as Not Accredited.
-otherwise, the local school administrative unit will be designated as Accredited.
If a non-public school is currently accredited through June, 1998, the accreditation will be extended for a period of two years to allow an alternate accreditation process to be established by the non-public school. At the end of this time, there will be no further non-public school accreditations granted by the State Board of Education.
http://sbepolicy.dpi.state.nc.us/
_________________
or this?
5010
ACCREDITATION
5010
The Board endorses the validation of educational planning and programming of the school system by encouraging its staff to work toward attaining and continuing accreditation of the school system by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. The Board, as a further act of assurance to its students and parents, desires to maintain the high schools of the system as members of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
Legal Reference: G.S. 115C-36 and G.S. 115C-47
Adopted: August 20, 1976
http://www.wcpss.net/policy-files/series/policies/5010-bp.html
The policy is on the books
Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:10 — KeungHui (author)The policy is on the books but DPI hasn't actually implemented it. Ann Majestic found that state policy too but has also acknowledged there's no actual state process for accrediting a school or district.
interesting yet
Mon, 01/24/2011 - 21:33 — AngelaWinteresting yet strange....as the policy reads, it seems as if as long as more than half the schools are NOT under-performing it is just simply considered accredited.
yet Majestic indicated that this is not "implemented"?
What you describe sound
Mon, 01/24/2011 - 22:37 — woodstockWhat you describe sound suspiciously like a "process" for determining who is accredited and who is not. Aren't government agencies accoutable for carrying out policies? If not, it makes one wonder what the point of policies are.
So following policy is a
Mon, 01/24/2011 - 20:58 — woodstockSo following policy is a choice? That is interesting.
What about identifying a specific vendor? That seems entirely inappropriate.
Given that only one of the
Mon, 01/24/2011 - 13:10 — user12345Given that only one of the >100? school systems in the state needs something special, keeping the task in the private sector seems best. We don't need to add anymore overhead to DPI. Besides, eventually, WCPSS would not like DPI and would be shopping someone else anyway.
That is very interesting.
Sat, 01/22/2011 - 18:14 — woodstockThat is very interesting. I wonder why this policy has not been part of the discussion. It appears to clearly state that it is the mandate of DPI to accredit our schools. So, why are we even messing around with AdvancED's nonsense? It doesn't make sense. This should be sorted out before any decision is made about letting the witch hunt continue.
ALSO, I it extremely concerning that the State Board would identify a specific vendor/contractor in a policy. It is my understanding that that is at a minimum bad policy and potentially unethical or illegal.
*slight* difference, the
Sat, 01/22/2011 - 18:25 — AngelaW*slight* difference, the policy that contains the specific vendor is a WCPSS BoE policy.
and this is key I would think;
The Board, as a further act of assurance to its students and parents, desires to maintain the high schools of the system as members of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
desires vs. requires, no?
Ah, yes. I see it is the WCPSS
Sat, 01/22/2011 - 18:39 — woodstockAh, yes. I see it is the WCPSS policy -- not the State one -- that identifies the specific vendor. Still, I think it is highly unusual to name in a policy the company you "desire" to contract with ... even it is for optional services.
I guess the more important point considering the situation created by NAACP's collusion with AdvancED is that it appears -- according to the State policy -- that DPI already accredits schools in Wake County ... and all the other counties in the State for that matter.
yes, one certainly might
Sat, 01/22/2011 - 18:45 — AngelaWyes, one certainly might wonder why a specific vendor is mentioned in policy. wasn't there some "transportation" thing awhile back?
and yes, if this is the policy and NC schools are indeed accredited by the State, then why is SACS/AdvanceEd needed @ $25,000 a pop?
maybe June Atkinson should be asked about this? or has the "disapproving" Bev told her to stay out of this?
And if it snows and school is delayed...
Sat, 01/22/2011 - 13:16 — ncellagatorWhat a saga.
how many months until the fall elections?
Fri, 01/21/2011 - 17:22 — wakepta123Fall and a new "super majority" can not come too quickly.
Please plead the 5th
Fri, 01/21/2011 - 14:42 — user12345It's possible some of the other Republican board members who objected might refuse to be interviewed, which could impact the review.
LOL, Goldman is the one who
Fri, 01/21/2011 - 12:12 — CaryCurmudgeonLOL, Goldman is the one who was insistent on having legal counsel present.
It will end up being a moot
Fri, 01/21/2011 - 12:27 — woodstockIt will end up being a moot point, I am betting she will be a no show... even though she has stated she wants them to follow through with the witch hunt.
I'd take that bet, even she
Fri, 01/21/2011 - 12:47 — CaryCurmudgeonI'd take that bet, even she doesn't have enough cojones to pull that.
We'll see...
Fri, 01/21/2011 - 12:50 — woodstockWe'll see...
sounds like you're privy to
Fri, 01/21/2011 - 13:05 — jeannie84sounds like you're privy to "inside info" (a.k.a., pillow talk), Woodstock
Inside information? Am not
Fri, 01/21/2011 - 13:34 — woodstockInside information? Pillow talk? What the hell...? Am not sure what you mean by that, but I don't need inside information to know that Goldman does not often do what she says she is going to do. Have you seriously not noticed that?
I am just guessing here based on past public behaviour, but your comment is kind of revealing. You seem to be saying that YOU have some inside information about what may or may occur.
As I said, we will see...
"Inside information? Pillow
Fri, 01/21/2011 - 13:45 — xmarkspot62"Inside information? Pillow talk?"
you do seem to know certain things that only a board member -- or their spouse -- would know
just sayin'
Really? What things? What is
Fri, 01/21/2011 - 14:27 — woodstockReally? What things? What "inside information" do I "know." Please explain as I am guessing here. However, I seem to have hit an unexpected and very intersting nerve -- a plot?-- here that is a little concerning to me and it sounds like others should be concerned too.
I am not sure what you are referring to spouse-wise... LOL this has come up before and I frankly don't get it. I don't even know the board members personally, much less engage in pillow talk with any of them. (You have no idea hust how funny that notion really is.) Also, no offense to any of them, they aren't exactly my type.
...
Fri, 01/21/2011 - 13:18 — SideburnsBetting she will be a no-show is "pillow talk"? How so?
I'm betting she'll attend the meeting (after visiting her hair stylist) and put on quite a show.
That makes sense
Fri, 01/21/2011 - 12:07 — nancyncIf you're going into closed executive session to discuss a matter with an attorney, that's a valid exception to the public having the right to be present at a public meeting.
I suspect there are legal concerns here, especially given the contentious nature of the communication to and from AdvancED.