Is it the Wake County school system or AdvancED that is being unreasonable and uncooperative in the accreditation review?
As noted in today's article, both sides insist they've been cooperative and that the other party has been unreasonable. There has been plenty of finger pointing over the process, which is putting at risk the accreditation of Wake's 24 high schools.
"All said, the history of communication reflects that the school system has been cooperative and that AdvancED has not," writes school board attorneys Ann Majestic and Jonathan Blumberg in Thursday's letter to AdvancED. "Collegiality is a two-way street, and the school system wants to restore constructive dialogue and good faith to this process."
The school board says its making "reasonable requests" when it asks for things like allowing lawyers to provide counsel to school board members and staff during the interviews and to know what topics will be covered in advance.
But Mark Elgart, president and CEO of AdvancED, accused Wake of being confrontational. He said Wake is only the second school district in the past 25 years that has refused to cooperate with a review by the accrediting agency.
Elgart accused school board members of trying to misinform the public by accusing AdvancED of wanting to dictate how students will be assigned. He said they're only reviewing whether the school board followed its own policies and procedures when it changed the student assignment policy.
“It’s disappointing in the fact they’ve failed to recognize that we’re trying to help them improve,” Elgart said. “We’re not here to dictate policy to them.”
Elgart took aim at one of the most frequent complaints from Wake about AdvancED not allowing board members and staff to have legal representation during the interviews. AdvancED has said that school attorneys can attend the meetings only as observers.
"This isn't a legal proceeding," Elgart said. "This is not a deposition. This is not a thing that would require an attorney to be present."
In her statement Thursday, school board member Deborah Prickett said it was unfair for board and staff not to have legal representation when AdvancED would have a lawyer at the interviews. That's because Ken Bergman, AdvancED's general counsel, was to be the leader of the review team coming this week.
Elgart said Bergman wasn't participating in the meetings in his capacity as an attorney. He also said that a new team will have to be formed because this week's visit was postponed so Bergman might not be on the new one.
In Wake's earlier letters this week to Elgart, Majestic raised concerns about not having legal counsel present because of the federal Office for Civil Rights investigation that touches on many of the same issues as the AdvancED complaint. It's not a surprise since the NAACP filed both complaints.
"We've told them we're not here to investigate the OCR complaint," Elgart said. "We're not here to judge the OCR complaint. We're here to investigate whether they are following their own policies."
Elgart said the four requests in Thursday's letter were the same ones that AdvancED has previously rejected. He said granting them would result in Wake being treated differently than other members who've faced reviews.
There's been talk from some school board members about seeking accreditation from a different group. But Elgart said that's not as easy as it seems.
Elgart said that the accrediting agencies are reluctant to grant their seal of approval to institutions who've had problems with their prior agency. Even if another group agrees to review Wake's accreditation request, Elgart said that the district would likely face the same questions they're getting now from AdvancED.
“The school system can’t play a shell game here,” Elgart said.
Comments
Burke County and AdvancED
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 16:36 — magnetParentWCPS BoE should consider this as they refuse to cooperate.
http://www.wral.com/news/education/wake_county_schools/story/8942115/
"This week, Atlanta-based AdvanceEd pulled accreditation from Burke County Schools in Morganton, partly because board members’ behavior, factions among the board and last-minute meeting changes.
The district, however, can still keep its accreditation if the school board can show by June 30 that it has made significant progress in meeting required actions outlined by the AdvanceEd review team – specifically that the board actions align with district policy and AdvanceEd standards, professional decorum at board meetings and that board members are educated on district policies."
And a local news station:
http://morganton.wbtv.com/content/burke-school-district-danger-losing-accreditation
"It means it's more difficult to get into colleges," said Stellar. "Its more difficult to get scholarships. Hurts the economic development of the whole area because a lot of businesses, when they look at moving into our area, they look at what are schools like, are they accredited."
Stellar said there is only one group responsible for the problem.
"This is all about the board of education," he said. "It has nothing to do with the sperintendent, the administration, the teachers, students. It is all about the board of education."
However, the report from AdvancED specifically stated: "The Team strongly feels the evidence gathered during this December visit and previous visits places the blame for the 'tug of war' in the Burke County Schools squarely on the shoulders of the entire Board and the Superintendent. Borrowing from the words of some board members and other stakeholders, the Team feels it is time for Burke County to 'get the right people in place to fix this problem' and 'start over with a whole new team.'"
Scary....
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 18:33 — Bob_SconceThe interim Burke County report is here:
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wbtv/Burke_County.pdf
Among other things that AdvanceEd had problems with:
What's worse is that, somehow, AdvanceEd pulled these requirements out of the SCHOOL accreditation standards.
There is nothing wrong with having majority/minority factions on a board, especially when the two sides represent significantly different parts of the political spectrum. Politics isn't neat-and-tidy.
Thanks for the link - Now
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 20:19 — Solon77add context
Board members continue to utilize blogs and e-mails to their followers to encourage feuding between and among other board members. This evidence also reinforces that the Board is not speaking with one voice and acting as a cohesive unit, but rather, board members continue to cater to their individual agendas and constituencies.
A number of stakeholders expressed the opinion that while board behavior is not rancorous, gossip, rumor, and suspicion characterize interpersonal relationships among members.
When adults who are in leadership roles in a school system conduct themselves in an ineffective, unprofessional manner, students are impacted and their future progress is impaired. It is very apparent to the Team that staffing is not the issue with Burke County Schools; the problem rests with all the members of the Board of Education. Board members have failed to sustain any sense of working collaboratively as an effective team to improve the Burke County School System. The most recent example of this behavior was exhibited when the board chair, representing
the majority faction of the Board, and the Superintendent changed the regularly scheduled monthly meeting of December 6, 2010 to the morning of December 8, 2010, even though all board members could not attend. Two board members who are part of the minority faction of the Board were not present, yet the Board proceeded to hold officer elections during this changed meeting, thus eliminating the opportunity for the absent members to vote.
This makes a great case for
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 20:49 — CaryCurmudgeonThis makes a great case for the board not bothering to proceed with the review.
Many of these same behaviors and dynamics are present on our board, so what. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how sausage gets made, only how good the end product turns out. Graduation rates have increased since this board took office, after declining for several years in a row.
Sure, I'd rather see more adult behavior from the board members. But there is plenty of bad behavior on both sides of the fence, some of it inherent in a democratic government.
So as long as school board members act nice to each other, AdvanceEd obviously thinks it is ok to have declining graduation rates, or at least it was ok in Wake County. And if board members squabble, then improving graduation rates don't count for squat with AdvanceEd.
Maybe they should have hired the Emily Post Institute to do their board training instead of Civitas, evidently it would have made quite an impression on AdvanceEd
Interesting stretch
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 20:55 — Solon77Interesting stretch giving credit to the new board for an increase in graduation rates. I better go get my hip waders.
That's exactly the point, I
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 20:59 — CaryCurmudgeonThat's exactly the point, I did not give credit to the new school board for the increase in graduation rates. The rates simply increased. And all of the bad behavior of our school board was not enough to stop the rates from increasing. So why audit the behavior instead of the results. Enjoy your hip waders.
What is a number of
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 20:23 — red_balloonWhat is a number of stakeholders? The GSIW, NAACP, and magnet stakeholders? Or the voting public? Is it a matter of collecting all opinions? Or only those that support the NAACP's viewpoint? This is getting more and more ludicrous, especially the reliance of some people on the wisdom and fairness of AdvancED.
Threshold
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 20:48 — Solon77It is a matter of collecting opinions other than Ron, John, Chris, Deb,Debra and the people who voted them in - which represents a slim minority of the county stakeholders.
You still don't get it - it is not about race. I am white and am sickened by the behavior of this board. If you need evidence at how this matters towards achievement - just look back over the past year and the lack of any progress made towards achievement. You think admitting more kids to Algebra I and changing the zero tolerance policy is progress ? It is nothing compared to what Terry Grier accomplished at Guilford and later San Diego in one year. The G5 thought they could cut to the fast track - skip over everything and just do what they want. Instead of expediting the process they prolonged it. There are no short cut when implementing major change, competent leadership would know this. Instead we are mired in lawsuits and distractions because of their incompetence. In the end the students will pay because of the inflated egos of the board and their unwillingness to admit their approach was wrong and to correct it. Read Bob's like to Burke county and see if anything rings familiar - it has nothing to do with race. So much for your collusion theory.
Of course the BOE needs to
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 22:00 — red_balloonOf course the BOE needs to do more for achievement. And maybe they will once they get past the busing issue. I am resigned to each BOE pursuing a pet cause. But it would be nice to have accomplishments in the area of achievement.
I am neither black nor white and find it nauseating that the community that is the least engaged in education is in the vanguard of ruining WCPSS.
Student achievement should
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 12:30 — ncellagatorStudent achievement should trump all issues. That is the primary goal of the school system. But every agenda is packed with assignment issues. Very little if any on improving student achievement.
Follow the money ...
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 13:33 — user12345Follow the money ... donations are based on assignments and getting certain kids in certain schools (an some out of certain schools)... there are no donations / PACs focused on achievement ... it is that simple.
I haven't read the report
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 19:53 — jenmanI haven't read the report yet but I agree that what you've posted is scary.
Why?
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 19:59 — Dove314Why is it scary? Because the WCPSS shows the same behaviors? Or because you don't think AdvancED should be reviewing or considering such behaviors as a part of their audit processes? Regardless of AdvancED and the current BoE situation, which style of governance do you think is more productive for a community / district?
So...
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 21:44 — Bob_SconceIt's scary because it puts AdvanceEd's priorities ahead of those of the voters. Sometimes, there is a clear division among voters that gets reflected in an elected body -- when that happens, its because the voters, as a whole, want that to happen. The people who voted for Tedesco, Prickett, Goldman and Malone in 2009 KNEW that they would face a lot of resistance from Hill, McLaurin, Morrison and Sutton. Those voters WANTED them to take a hard line and to fight hard. And, it may be that this fall, Hill, McLaurin, Sutton and Sherron(?) are elected specifically to take a hard line back and to fight hard.
Who is AdvanceEd to tell those voters that they shouldn't want that? Who is AdvanceEd to put its own preferences ahead of those voters?
If there were an actual detriment to the High Schools from the board's being divided, there'd be some justification. But, where is that detriment? The thing that affects the schools is the decisions that are made, not whether they're made 5-4 v. 9-0.
Example of dysfunctional board's impact on achievement
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 19:05 — Solon77So how does a dysfunctional board impact schools ? Kansas City example.
In her bafflement, Ms. Sanders is not alone. In the wake of the Kansas City school board’s decision to shutter 28 of its 61 schools, many people were left scratching their heads. While school closings as a result of demographic change and tight budgets are commonplace across the country, rarely does a system lose half of itself in one sweep.
The sudden move suggests a depth of dysfunction here that is rarely associated with Kansas City, a lively heartland town with a reputation for order. But a closer look at the school board’s recent history reveals a chaotic, almost nonfunctioning body that put off making tough choices and even routine improvements for generations. Experts said that in the board’s years of inaction is a cautionary tale for school districts everywhere.
“This is extraordinary,” said Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy, a research group in Washington. “The school board was dysfunctional for years. There was very poor governance for a long period of time, and it was like a revolving door with superintendents.”
Mr. Jennings also said the board was plagued with “a general unwillingness to face the facts” of the chaos it created.
Students have been leaving the Kansas City public schools in droves. Close to 18,000 students exited to better suburban districts or charter schools in the last 10 years alone. The student enrollment is now 17,400 children, who are mostly black and impoverished.
And achievement levels in the schools are abysmal: Fewer than a third of elementary students in the city schools read at or above grade level. And in most of the schools, fewer than a quarter of students are proficient at their grade levels.
In 2006, the Council of the Great City Schools, a Washington-based coalition of the nation’s largest school districts, produced an extensive analysis of what was going wrong in the Kansas City schools. It concluded that the board wasted too much time on administrative trivia, its instructional program lacked “cohesion and forward momentum” and it had “no machinery” for intervening when students fell behind.
Almost
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 00:21 — Dove314Until you said "no detriment to the High Schools", I was considering your words. But, having a high schooler, I can honestly say it seems like high school students are the board's red-headed step child. In the last year, I've watched this board and this blog debate sacrificing high school children's schedule so elementary school children made their schedules and elementary school parents could be least effected, dropping courses in high schools to have more options at more elementary schools beyond magnets, dropping sports or sports maintenance, increasing fees, setting up the environment for poaching student athletes, and more. The BoE and the EDSATF have effectively written off the current children in high school and focused their efforts towards improvements in student achievement on middle school and younger. The BoE moved high school students around without any voice at all while the majority of younger age children at least had some voice. If you are just noticing Daniels can't take on more kids without overtaxing the cafeteria, you should check out a high school. Can you find one amongst them that would have a prayer of serving all the kids if they chose to eat a school lunch even if it is in a trailer? Kids are required to eat outside even in winter. One of the schools that is currently set up to best serve AG children has a target the size of Wake County on it for destruction rather than any attempt for review to consider options to retain the programs and give service to more AG children without the bias to the selection process of the past. And now, to cap all of this, high school students who are succeeding may now find their college and scholarship opportunities weakened because a bunch of adults insist on repeatedly throwing tantrums and won't play nice together. Maybe because you don't have a child in high school, you haven't noticed the rather blatant bias toward younger children by the BoE and in this blog but that doesn't negate its existence.
Honestly, this is the first
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 12:23 — jenmanHonestly, this is the first I'm hearing of this concern about high school students being ignored in favor of elem and middle school. I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, but I think you need to get this message out. I'm assuming you've written letters to the BOE. Maybe an LTE?
Um...
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 10:16 — Bob_SconceSo... I haven't investigated enough to comment on the merits of your claims (few questions below, though). But, presuming that they're true, how do any of those depend on the board making decisions 5-4 v. 9-0?
Questions:
1. What school has a 'target the size of Wake County'? Not saying it doesn't; just don't know what you're referring to.
2. Do you find that parents of high school students are less involved than parents of younger kids?
3. What are you talking about 'poaching student athletes'? Do you mean between WCPSS schools, or from WCPSS to Private? (if it's the latter, why should we care?)
4. You're casting this in terms of "elementary v. high school." How much of it is really "magnet v. non-magnet"? The comment about "dropping courses in high schools" seems aimed at my view that perhaps Enloe (a magnet high school) should drop a foreign language course so that district non-magnet middle schools could offer those courses more broadly. But, that's really focused on the magnet resources, not on Enloe being a high school.
Because like Bob said, you
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 20:29 — jenmanBecause like Bob said, you aren't always going to get agreement and there will be two opposing 'sides' to some issues. The fact that we have 2 opposing factions has absolutely nothing to do with the high schools. Is it only ok if one side cedes to the other? Maybe the minority faction should just shut up and get behind the majority so that we don't appear in a negative light. I hope you're offended by that thought because I am. This is a democracy and sometimes it is ugly but it's a wonderful thing that we can have 2 opposing sides on an issue.
Do I think it's the best situation or the most productive style? Not particularly. But our community is divided so the BOE is just mirroring what is going on in the community. The most productive thing for us right now is to let this play out. (Actually, I think that the most productive thing would be an impartial, objective mediator.) I've always said that this is going to be difficult and ugly at times but we have to go through it for things to get any better. Both sides have valid points and both sides think they are doing what is right for all of our students no matter how much we might disagree with them.
No mediator in their right mind would take this on
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 00:40 — Dove314No mediator in their right mind would want to take this on. Look at how AdvancEd is portrayed and judged. Look at how Tata is portrayed and judged. Any mediator worth their salt would know there would be no rational attempts at participating in mediation with fair compromises asked of all. Instead, any process would just involve all sides positioning and trying to make any mediator appear biased if they aren't clearly leaning in their favor.
You may have once thought this had to be turned into an ugly fight as a necessary step toward your goals but it is that fight mentality itself that has done more harm to your original goals than anything else to date. If you wanted a mediator, that needed to be someone up front, right at the beginning and early on -- not after everyone from the US Secretary of Education, state government, the national press, the courts, and more were watching us pitting neighbor against neighbor, neighborhood against neighborhood, school against school, ES vs HS, magnet vs non-magnet, BoE majority vs BoE minority, and more with a rapid escalation in arrogance on all sides and somehow so many adults of this county treating manners as unnecessary and namecalling and derision as their first choice and voice.
I never said it had to be an
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 12:09 — jenmanI never said it had to be an 'ugly fight'. I said that that this situation was going to get ugly at times. I don't have a 'fight mentality'. When I say that it needs to get ugly, I mean that we need to talk about these issues and get them out in the open. I think there are many things that have been ignored over the years because the truth is unnpleasant and nobody wants to face it. That is what I mean when I say that it needs to get ugly. I absolutely do not mean an ugly 'fight'.
I anticipated push back from members in the community, but I didn't anticipate just how ugly some of the community members and groups would be. I see value in both sides' positions and I don't think that either side is 'evil' or out to destroy anything. It is not productive to just shout at people about how awful they are.
I want to again address the 'fight mentality'. Various WSCA members have spoken at BOE meetings, calling for reasonable debate and encouraging the board to find the middle ground that we know is there. We've been open to discussion with opponents and allowed anybody to come to our meetings and be on our mailing list. We have not encouraged 'fighting' and we declined to attend the 'support our new school board' rally that was sponsored by one of the republican groups.
Many people post here and not all of them are WSCA or even GSIW members. Or if they are members or are on one side or the other, they do not represent the leadership or message of the group.
Because they are liars with
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 20:29 — red_balloonBecause they are liars with likely a hidden agenda. Take a look at AdvancED's listing of countries where accreditation has been awarded. It is a stretch to think that democracies across the world operate like a joint meeting of the NAACP and GSIW.
it's all political
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 16:40 — loriaclooking at your quote, and considering the Wake BOE:
'The district, however, can still keep its accreditation if the school board can show by June 30 that it has made significant progress in meeting required actions outlined by the AdvanceEd review team – specifically that the board actions align with district policy and AdvanceEd standards, professional decorum at board meetings and that board members are educated on district policies.'
board actions align with district policy ... Have there been any instances where they have not?
align with AdvancEd standards ... hard to tell, in the letter they only repeated NAACP claims, not which AdvancEd 'standards' they felt were not being adhered to.
Professional decorum ... pick on Mr. Tedesco if you wish, but one mistake (duly apologized for) does not merit losing accreditation. This is more of a problem with the audience.
Board members educated on district policies .... interesting that one of the concerns raised by NAACP was over adding Civitas to supply BOE training as an option.
This is a political witch hunt. Mr. Elgart is in too deep now, with no way to save face with the NAACP, and to save his company.
Just to be clear, those
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 17:03 — magnetParentJust to be clear, those quotes are regarding the Burke County BoE and their loss of accreditation.
RIght, but you said that
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 17:31 — loriacRIght, but you said that Wake BOE should consider these. To me , it seemed like you were saying that Wake BOE was doing the same things mentioned in your post.
Well for one, there is no
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 18:09 — magnetParentWell for one, there is no mention of John Tedesco in the quoted text, so I don't know why you think I am picking on him. Funny that is where you leaped to based on those words.
It's more for our BoE to understand AdvancEDs angle and the purpose of their review. To (hopefully) stop thinking this is some kind of collusion with the NAACP and that they are not picking on them.
Has our BoE actions aligned with district policy? That's what AdvancED wants to find out. You say they have. So they have nothing to worry about here. (I don't agree - they probably do have something to worry about, which is why they are fighting this so much)
Is our board educated on the district policies? I think you and I might have differing opinions on that, but if they are, what are they worried about?
As far as the professional decorum part, one might say there is more than one instance under question.
Bottom line - AdvancED pulled Burke Countys accreditation based on the behavior of the board, NOT because they did not like their assignment policy, etc. Similar to what they are trying to review here.
...
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 16:50 — SideburnsMaybe Burke County will join us in finding a more upstanding accreditation process.
Or at least help autocrat
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 19:32 — red_balloonOr at least help autocrat Elgart understand that dissent, polite or impolite, is part of democracy. So unless AdvancED gets control over appointing BOEs, Elgart should get a primer on how democracies work. If he is throwing a fit over how a democratically elected body functions in the USA, I wonder how Elgart got around to accrediting schools in certain countries.
It is possible school
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 17:02 — woodstockIt is possible school systems will be standing in line to find "a more upstanding accreditation process."
...
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 17:17 — SideburnsI agree. I don't think AdvancED has realized that playing bully with the largest school district in NC can and possibly will set the stage for other, much smaller districts to follow our lead.
WSCA Goals
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 18:03 — HereWeGoWSCA goals are:
How does not being accredited fit into the above goals?
How does not being
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 20:56 — CaryCurmudgeonHow does not being accredited fit into the NAACP's (who started this mess) goals? GWIS has been steadily fanning the flames from day one, how does not being accredited fit into their goals?
Can you honestly say you weren't the least bit thrilled when you heard that AdvancEd was going to act on the NAACP's complaint and do a review? Did you think about loss of accreditation then, or only about how great it would be for someone to come in here and stick it to the school board? Be careful what you ask for.
Wow
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 21:16 — HereWeGoSo if someone breaks in my house and takes my TV and I report them to the authorities it is my fault when they get in trouble for their actions? If I tell the authorities I think my neighbor, Fred, took my TV and the authorities have no proof, then it does not matter what my allegations are, there will be no consequences to Fred. If the authorities go to speak with Fred and he is watching my TV there will most likely be consequences to Fred. So, Fred received consequences because he chose to take my TV.
The new school board would not listen, so there was no choice but to being in outside authorities. If there are consequences, it is their behavior and choices. All they had to do was follow their own policies, which if they have done, this review will clear them.
Is there behavior over the last year what you voted for?
Bad analogy, Fred broke the
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 21:20 — CaryCurmudgeonBad analogy, Fred broke the law.
And I don't vote for behavior, I vote for results.
So
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 21:32 — HereWeGoIf the legal authorities knocked on my door tonight, and informed me that my neighbor Fred accused me of taking his TV, I would welcome the authorities into my home so they could see that I did not have Fred’s TV.
So if the NAACP’s claims are baseless, why are they not welcoming this review in order to clear themselves?
So...
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 17:20 — Bob_SconceWhat happens when they start looking into your underwear drawer for his TV, with the justification "Well, if there's something stolen in your underwear drawer, that makes it more likely that you stole the TV"?
In essence, that's a big part of AdvanceEd's claim here -- if the board broke some policy that has nothing to do with the accredited schools, then AdvanceEd claims they're likely to break a policy that does have to do with the high schools. In court, that sort of evidence would be inadmissible (for good reason).
I'll give you a better
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 14:28 — CaryCurmudgeonI'll give you a better analogy. Boy Scout troops across the country are accredited by the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). Scouts work hard to achieve different ranks, Eagle being the highest. To me, this is no different than the BSA coming to visit a local Boy Scout troop, digging into how they appoint Patrol Leaders, how they decide where to do their camping trip, and how the troop leaders get along -- and telling the troop leaders that the BSA will not recognize any of those Eagle Scouts despite all the hard work they did to earn that rank. And the local troop is screwed because there is only one BSA Oh, and that local troop came under scrutiny from the BSA by someone who knows nothing about Boy Scouts and doesn't even live in the area.
Then move on ...
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 16:22 — user12345You are very trusting.
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 22:11 — loriacYou are very trusting. Fred paid off the cop, and when he came in he dropped a baggie of pot behind the TV. When he went to inspect it, he 'found' the pot and arrested you.
And once the SBI finishes
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 23:37 — red_balloonAnd once the SBI finishes its work, HereWeGo gets on the state's guest list.
AdvancED and NAACP Complaints Always Seem To Go Together
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 13:58 — RMC10(Just Google Southern Accreditation Complaints and School Districts) I thought the goal of AdvancED - was to do as it's name suggests advance education, not be a governing board for that nationwide. Even the Accreditation Agency gets paid for the accreditation and as such would become WCPSS client (so to speak), and again their job would be to help their client keep their accreditation - not to govern their clients.
I read the article by Arne Duncan, and read only the same old rhetoric - only if it helps/hurts black children is it relevant. The bussing for socioeconomic diversity was just what it was. Black children were bussed out, while schools (magnets) were created to lure white kids into the "project area" schools that would have no doubt been closed in that area for failure to meet standards. It did sound sooo good until the school district had an exploded student growth problem - then reassignments over and over could not keep that 1 for 1 ratio, and so we (the voters) voted for that failed socioeconomic experiment to stop.
Until someone in this country realizes diversity is not about family income, where someone goes to school (as long as a seat is provided within a public school district), and definitely not about the color of one's skin as opposed to the colors of all skins in a population, and as long as every NAACP complaint is only about black AA injustices, instead of supporting all colors of injustice, Wake County in small part, and the South Region in large part will keep reliving the 60s forever.
"AdvancED and NAACP
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 16:46 — woodstock"AdvancED and NAACP Complaints Always Seem To Go Together"
EXACTLY!!!! They are in collusion, BIG TIME!
This is the the root of the situation and the media completely ignores it. AdvancED is stepping beyond the bounds of mere accreditation and entering into race-hustling politics. The public and school systems are NOT going to stand for that.
Collusion?
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 17:51 — Athey01In your earlier posts, you thought there "may" be a connection between AdvancED and NAACP....but you did not provide any factual information. Now, you are making an assertion that there is a collusion relationship...again, without any factual information.
It seem that you are trying to link AdvancED to a group that is negatively perceived on the blog. I have always thought that you were a very intelligent poster, but with all due respect, this type of slander is beneath you.
If it was slander, it would
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 16:33 — woodstockIf it was slander, it would indeed be beneath me, however...
Why no consideration of the positive benefit of an audit?
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 08:36 — Dove314Was responding elsewhere but wanted to put this here for consideration as well. Why is there no focus on the potential positive of having the audit results showing WCPSS is operating according to its own policies and processes, something supportive for WCPSS in the OCR review.
You raise a good point. I
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 09:35 — red_balloonYou raise a good point. I would welcome an independent and professional review that would grill a BOE and force it to backup its actions with sound reasoning. But AdvancED's independence is in doubt. They appear to be moving forward with the NAACP's agenda. Add that to Elgart's lies about actions vs. process, his uncooperative and belligerent attitude, and apparent absence of feedback on the five inches of documentation submitted by WCPSS, I have serious concerns about this exercise being beneficial to WC.
It would be absolutely fantastic if AdvancED takes a moment to back away from threats and informs WCPSS of their process. And allows the active presence of attorneys because you can be sure that a misphrased innocuous statement will have GSIW, NAACP, etc. up in arms and rushing to the courts.
Two points:
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 07:35 — Bob_SconceFirst: Elgart today "said they're only reviewing whether the school board followed its own policies and procedures when it changed the student assignment policy." (i.e. we don't care about the actions taken -- we only want to make sure you followed the right process) Elgart last fall: "a special review team needs to conduct a visit to determine whether the actions of the Wake County Public School System are negatively impacting the ability of the schools in Wake County to [meet the accreditation standards.]" (i.e. we do care about the actions taken.)
Second: Elgart has said why the board members don't NEED an attorney participating (I think he's wrong, but whatever). But, he hasn't said why they should be prevented from having one. "Can I wear a red shirt to the interview?" "No, you cannot. There's no reason to wear a red shirt."
So...
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 12:21 — chaboardSecond: Elgart has said why the board members don't NEED an attorney participating (I think he's wrong, but whatever). But, he hasn't said why they should be prevented from having one
So...
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 12:32 — Bob_SconceThat's a good point, but it seems that AdvanceEd could adopt a reasonable rule to allow it in limited circumstances. First of all, AdvanceEd is not generally in the habit of interviewing policy-makers -- their focus is generally school-based. Secondly, there's usually no litigation or threatened litigation which would affect a district's needs, especially not when the litigation came from the same person filing the original complaint. Thirdly, it's possible to limit the involvement of attorneys to questions that related directly to current or threatened litigation. Fourthly, they could try it, and see how it goes -- if it doesn't work, then they can always say "Let's not do that again." AdvanceEd is not bound to follow the same procedures in each investigation.
Elgart says that failure by
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 09:08 — KeungHui (author)Elgart says that failure by Wake to follow its own policies and procedures would be a sign it's not meeting accreditation standards.