Wake County school board member Carolyn Morrison has released a statement explaining why she will vote tonight against withdrawing from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the local arm of AdvancED.
In her statement today, Morrison says that Wake should work with the accreditation review team and "not hinder them in their investigation." She lumps the potential loss of accreditation with dropping the diversity policy, eliminating Wake/Wacky Wednesdays, withdrawing from the N.C. Schools Boards Association, eliminating the requirement that the superintendent be an educator, giving speakers two minutes now instead of three at board meetings and cutting public comment to one meeting a month.
Here's Morrison's statement:
1-12-11 Statement by Carolyn Bond Morrison on SACS Accreditation:
I am very saddened to think that we are even considering withdrawing our SACS Accreditation, which we have enjoyed for many years. I do not support such action. We need to follow the SACS procedures in a cooperative/collegial manner, not hinder them in their investigation, receive and consider their decision, and then decide whether to accept it or appeal ultimately to the courts. If SACS issued an unfavorable decision, we could seek to retain our accreditation during the appellate process.
Withdrawing our accreditation now would be precipitous. It also could be misinterpreted as flight can be used as evidence of guilt.
Withdrawing our accreditation would be another discouraging blow to our school system, which in little more than a year has seen withdrawals from diversity efforts, professional learning teams, the North Carolina School Boards Association, requirements that our superintendent be an experienced educator, and reduced time for public comments.
For these reasons, I will vote NO on any motion to withdraw our accreditation.
UPDATED TO MENTION CUTTING TIME FOR INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS AT BOARD MEETINGS
Comments
The public comment time was
Thu, 01/13/2011 - 09:22 — jenmanThe public comment time was reduced to 2 minutes so that more people would be able to speak. In the early days when there were tons of people who wanted to speak, they let the public comment period last for more than an hour so that everybody could speak.
GSIW regularly sends out pleas for people to speak at the meetings. They provide the talking points they want covered and even offer to help craft the speaker's speech, yet it is still the same core group of people who speak at each meeting. I don't think that anybody's ability to comment has been curtailed.
Every single speaker signed
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:41 — woodstockEvery single speaker signed up to speak at every single meeting since the new board members were elected to their seats on the board have been given an opportunity to speak.
?
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 17:01 — Bob_SconceSo...
(1) They are back to meeting twice a month.
(2) They have always called meetings with at least 48 hours lead time -- please cite an example where they didn't.
(3) PLTs, if I recall, are now done at time selected by individual schools.
Let me help your recall Bob_Sconce
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 21:42 — r_u_seriousThe majority BOE decision to have "PLTs done at time selected by individual schools" demonstrated their usual lack of understanding as to the complexity of running a 163 school system. Elementary schools do not run on a period/block bell schedule. The ability for an elementary school to come together as a community let alone various professional learning teams is seriously thwarted. Many elementary teachers now come in early or stay late for FREE to have these meetings. The goodness of our hearts is seriously stretched. In the business world this would never be tolerated.
It's not really out of the
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 22:07 — luv2teachIt's not really out of the goodness of our hearts...we are MADE and FORCED to come. There's no "goodness" in it. You are correct about being "seriously stretched". I just wonder how much stretching is going to happen before something "snaps" and "breaks" and that will happen, it will happen!
"(2) They have always
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 17:33 — jeannie84"(2) They have always called meetings with at least 48 hours lead time -- please cite an example where they didn't."
The special session tonight (and it's agenda) was called with less than 24 hours notice
Wrong. Try again.
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:47 — woodstockWrong. Try again.
No...
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 17:54 — Bob_SconceFirst of all, IIRC, the rule doesn't say anything about when things can be added to the agenda.
Second of all, Keung's post about this yesterday was more than 24 hours before the special session -- so that 24-hour notice is clearly wrong. That special session was, evidently, originally scheduled for Tuesday evening, but was rescheduled Monday for Wednesday evening due to the weather. M->W = 48 hours. If there really more than 48 hours notice, Yevonne Brannon and Diana Bader would be competing to see which one could give birth to a cow the fastest.
Wow
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:04 — logosisdeadDid you just call these two women cows? That's really mean.
No...
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:13 — Bob_SconceI said they'd both HAVE cows, which is a figure of speech meaning, approximately, "get really upset."
No...
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 21:47 — logosisdead"Have a cow" is an easily recognizable phrase. You didn't use it. You said that they'd "give birth to a cow." This led me to believe that you avoided the common phrase because you wanted to make sure it said something else. Almost as if you wanted to make a point. What point is he making by avoiding the common phrase? - oh, maybe he's calling them "cows."
Whatever....
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 21:55 — Bob_SconceSo, don't believe me. I don't care. If you want to microscopically parse through my attempts to be clever, have at it.
The meeting was already
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 17:47 — KeungHui (author)The meeting was already scheduled because of the reassignment hearing. What was done with less than 48 hours was to add AdvancED to the action agenda.