Speaking of Wake County school board advisory councils, don't be surprised if you see some turnover, especially in District 8.
Hank Dickson submitted his resignation letter last week as District 8 BAC co-chair and representative for Holly Springs High. In the letter to new school board member Susan Evans, Dickson alludes to Evans' involvement with protesters who disrupted school board meetings.
"My appreciation of proper conduct and decorum during open meetings makes my continued service on your BAC very difficult," Dickson, a former Holly Springs Town Councilman, writes in the letter. "I regret that I must submit my resignation for both positions."
The resignation went into effect on Tuesday.
Now under policy revisions adopted by the prior board majority, BAC members serve at the pleasure of board members. This means Evans and the other new members can remove anyone they want, similar to what Debra Goldman and Deborah Prickett did to their BACs.
In Dickson's case, he was a a member of Ron Margiotta's re-election campaign committee.
Allison Backhouse, the other District 8 BAC co-chair and Margiotta's campaign manager, says she's not planning on resigning.
UPDATE
Rather than resummarize them, I'll just post the e-mail exchange between Evans and Backhouse.
Here's the email Evans sent to Backhouse on Friday night telling her she was out as BAC chair.
Hello Allison,
Can you tell me the status of the BAC8 Meeting coming up on Monday? Specifically, did you have any success with arranging dinner or should I assume we are starting at 6:30pm? Have you confirmed Susan Pulliam’s attendance? I was contacted by the principal of Turner Creek ES this week to confirm the meeting, which I wasn’t really able to do since you haven’t kept me in the loop.
Someone else on the email distribution list sent me the email below, which you chose not to send to me on November 3rd, even though I had been duly elected on October 11th. I also found it interesting that I had been removed from the email list in the fall and was not notified of the October meeting. I had been on the email distribution list for the previous two years and regularly received correspondence from your predecessor, Cindy Sinkez. One has to wonder why my name was removed from the email distribution list.
I hope you will agree that you and I cannot have an effective working relationship, particularly in light of the above and the fact that you have been publicly critical of me on many occasions. I have other individuals who have expressed an interest in serving as Chair or Co-chair of the BAC and I will be asking them to serve in that capacity once I have officially added them to the BAC roster later this month. While I would prefer to find another representative on behalf of Apex Middle School for the Council, you are, of course, always welcome to attend the meetings, as is any member of the public.
Please let me know if you plan to lead Monday’s meeting or if you prefer that I do it. Thank you for your past service to the BAC.
Sincerely,
Susan Evans
Here's Backhouse's response Friday evening.
Mrs. Evans,
The BAC 8 meeting is still on as scheduled and I have everything under control. I will be sending out an email by Monday morning with the specifics.
I am disappointed that you have chosen to dismantle our BAC rather than working with the current council. We do have a few open seats that could easily be filled with interested individuals without removing any current members. I am aware that you have already advised Curt Stangler that he will be replaced. It is quite a divisive start for someone who ran on a platform of building consensus.
Perhaps you should have asked why you did not receive an email about the October meeting before making offensive accusations. I did not and would not remove anyone from the BAC distribution list. Cindy Sinkez was asked for the BAC roster when Hank Dickson and I took over as Co-Chairs and she advised me that her hard drive had crashed (as she indicated in her email to you last month). I did not receive anything from Mrs. Sinkez in regards to BAC 8. She couldn't provide me with a roster, any minutes or a copy of the annual report from last year.
I was able to get the BAC 8 roster from Melissa Allen/WCPSS which still listed some of last year's BAC members. All members, both previous and current, were notified of the meeting. As you were not a member of the BAC, you were not on the roster provided by WCPSS; therefore, you did not receive an email. Melissa Allen/WCPSS was notified of our December meeting when it was scheduled and it was appropriately added to the Board of Education schedule online. It wasn't a secret that the meeting was scheduled. If you had asked for the information after you were duly elected, I would have happily provided it to you.
I understand that you don't want me to serve as Chair any longer but please be honest. You don't have to weave a tale in an attempt to make me look incompetent and vindictive. Board Policy 1005 clearly states that, as a Board member, one of your responsibilities is to "Work effectively with others". It is very concerning that you have already decided not to adhere to this policy. I am fully capable of fulfilling my duties as the chair of BAC 8 effectively and professionally - regardless of who represents our district.
I have chosen to reply to your email at your WCPSS email address - which is now listed on the WCPSS website. As a member of the Board of Education, I am sure you are well aware that matters relating to school business should be handled in an open and public manner - not through your personal email address.
I have full intention on leading Monday night's meeting as I was voted to handle that responsibility.
Thank you,
Allison Backhouse
BAC 8 Chair
Comments
Really????
Mon, 12/12/2011 - 16:45 — JanisTangoThe opt-outs were where they had space
You are wrong once again VD. My son's friend was sent to three different schools because he was a traditional opt out. Every year his parents begged the board to allow him to go to a school that had capacity closer to their home. They even talked to the principal at that school and she was all for it. They offered to provide transportation. They were denied until the last year of changes and G&P put them there.
I know another principal that made provisions to allow a student into their school that was at about 65% capacity at the time. The parents provided transportation and were told they just need to get their son's records transferred. When G&P found out mid year the kid was at this school and not at his assigned base, they made the parents move the kid mid year!
Stories like this were very common! It was about power with G&P and the board and not about anything else.
Well Said RaleighLaura....
Sun, 12/11/2011 - 23:31 — JanisTangoJGE had a different problem that hurt our school over the last 10 years. We had a revolving door of kids being bused in and bused out over the years. Student mobility has been our main issue. Because of it we had a lot of families that left voluntarily. I credit our principal, staff and Mr. Tata for finally recognizing the issues that we have suffered from and trying to do something to help going forward! Last year we had 25% of our 4th and 5th graders that had attended 3 or more schools by the time they got to JGE. For many of these kids it was a big struggle beecause of how far behind they already were! It is just disgraceful what we did to many of these children and families!
No...
Sun, 12/11/2011 - 22:07 — Bob_SconceCivil disobedience was NOT the only option -- they had a remedy on Oct. 8/Nov. Besides, switching to an assignment plan that nearly every other district in the country was using was far from a civil-rights issue. Instead, it was all about Barber trying to get his name in the paper.
I agree with Tyson that the
Sun, 12/11/2011 - 22:41 — virginiadareI agree with Tyson that the civil disobedience worked in bringing attention to what the board was trying to do and impacted the election in the protesters' direction, so in that sense it did exactly what was intended.
Really?
Sun, 12/11/2011 - 23:36 — Bob_SconceBarber's goal was to get the district back to what he called the "Gold Standard." Hill, as you've pointed out, has said that we're not going back to that standard. Doesn't sounds like they got what they wanted at all. You can't reasonably say that this past election was a vote in favor of busing-for-diversity.
Plus, consider that the D's managed to put a cork in Barber's mouth for the entirety of the election cycle. Why? I suspect his negatives were below Margiotta's.
But we do now have a board
Sun, 12/11/2011 - 23:51 — virginiadareBut we do now have a board who agrees with the Superintendent (past AND present) that we should not create high poverty, racially isolated schools, rather than a majority who just didn't care if we ended up with de facto segregated schools. I would say that IS what they were fighting for. Hill said we wouldn't go back to the old plan of base assignments, not that we wouldn't try to have some element of diversity, which can go hand-in-hand with the new choice plan. And I disagree that Barber's negatives would be higher than Margiottas.
So If They Have Choice
Mon, 12/12/2011 - 08:22 — JanisTangowith some element of diversity are you OK with 'high poverty' schools if that is what the parent's choose? If not, what would you do in that instance?
No I am not okay with high
Mon, 12/12/2011 - 09:58 — virginiadareNo I am not okay with high poverty schools which are more expensive and more likely to fail because of too many needs. Choice does not mean every single family, regardless of their economic status, will get their number one school, which is impossible. The choice must be controlled to maximize efficiency, proper capacity, and achievement for each school.
THere You Have It....
Mon, 12/12/2011 - 11:02 — JanisTangoI believe it choice as along as I can control the outcome.
Then you should tell your board buddies
Mon, 12/12/2011 - 10:24 — FSandYOUto halt this assignment plan now. Before it's too late.
They have 37 days!
huh?
Mon, 12/12/2011 - 09:35 — EBDarcyAre you saying that supporters of the former Repub majority weren't okay with that? They have no problem with the creation of high-poverty racially isolated schools if choice is involved. They oppose any attempt to mitigate the likelihood of that outcome. Heck didn't Tedesco even trot out the old "quota" line? (Boy, he's predictable isn't he?)
Do you think that low
Mon, 12/12/2011 - 15:05 — jenmanDo you think that low income, minority parents have a right to choose their local school even if it is racially and ses segregated? I'm honestly asking.
not sure that's the right question
Mon, 12/12/2011 - 16:10 — EBDarcyIsn't the question whether or not, given the current political and financial contraints, a high-poverty racially-isolated school provides the best education for any student? The boards number one priority should be the students.
Look at it from a different angle. If you think parents of minority and/or ED students should have the "right" to pick a high-poverty racially-identifiable school regardless of the potentially negative affect it might have on their children doesn't that mean they also have a "right" to pick a low-poverty, racially isolated school? Clearly there are parents who think they have a right , due to their SES, to chose a low-poverty racially identifiable school for their children. Obviously there is the possibility that those "rights" may conflict as there are only so many seats at desirable schools. So whose rights are more important? We know who has the most political clout.
But what is the BOE's role? If a child has a right to a quality education and the BOE's first priority is to provide that does that mean that the rights of all children should be a higher consideration that the arguable "right" of parents to pick the location of their child's school?
How Do You Measure This....
Tue, 12/13/2011 - 08:54 — JanisTangoeveryone says we need to give kids the best education possibly and I totally agree with that statement. My question is how do you measure what is best for a child. Just because a child is struggling and doesn't pass the EOGs in a given year doesn't mean he is not in the best environment for himself. I know of child that made up 18 months of learning in 12 because of the right teachers and environment. If you look at the child's individual test scores you wouldn't think he was doing well, but collectively he is making great strides. The hope is if he keeps at that pace he will eventually be back up to his peers. There is no way for this system to look at each child individually at that level. How do you measure and decide what is best for the children?
Darcy, which students are the priority?
Tue, 12/13/2011 - 00:32 — raleighlauraIt seems to me that the district has always decided, on almost a node by node basis, where that line should be. Until last year, we didn't have a fair chance of getting into a magnet because we were "needed" at our base. That decision had nothing to do with what was best for my kids, but put the system's goal of balance and utilization over my goal of getting my kids into a challenging program. Prior to 2009, scales were tipped regularly in the System's favor (with the full complicity of Millberg, Head, et al), and I hope we do not go back to such a heavy handed and paternalistic culture.
I think you're reading more
Mon, 12/12/2011 - 16:59 — jenmanI think you're reading more into my use of the word 'right'.
Honestly, I've never thought that the 'balancing' of our schools had much to do with the quality of education for low income kids.
But...
Mon, 12/12/2011 - 17:52 — Bob_SconceThe "right," such that it is, is only to choose the identity of the school, not its racial composition. Parents may have an impression of what that racial composition would look like, but have no legitimate complaint if that impression turns out to be wrong.
The BOE's role should be to educate students where they are. If parents determine that the best place for their son or daughter is the local school, it would be the height of hubris for the district to say "you're wrong; we know better."
Incidentally, the right is not to a "quality" education, but to a "sound, basic" education. At least in theory, a "sound basic" education is objective -- the idea is that yopu can apply a set of standards to an education to determine if it meets that criteria. In contrast, a "quality" education is not.
Where do you draw the line?
Mon, 12/12/2011 - 16:26 — loriacWhere do you draw the line? Should we prevent people from moving into 'racially identifiable' neighborhoods too?
This is Where WCPSS Went Off The Tracks....
Mon, 12/12/2011 - 11:10 — JanisTangothey tried to achieve a diversity quota for all schools in WCPSS. Most all districts in the US try to use the magnet program to help mitigate the creation of high poverty schools. Why WPCSS tried to do what they did is beyond me. They really felt it was a problem that one school might be 95% non F&R while another was 50% non-F&R. Today we have the magnet program at ITB school's that shouldn't be there and we have other schools that could use the program. It is time to study the magnet program in WCPSS and reconcile the inconsistencies. With that said, it probably won't happen with the new board members. Martin, Evans, etc were elected primarily to protect the magnet goodies!
Yep, it was that 'comparable
Mon, 12/12/2011 - 15:44 — jenmanYep, it was that 'comparable schools' clause. I remember the first time I heard that policy referenced. It was at a community assignment hearing at Millbrook (it may have been Sanderson--I don't remember for sure). Carol Parker was our rep at the time.
I think it was right around the election because I remember shortly afterwards emailing Hill and Dulaney to ask for a definition of 'comparable schools'. I asked for a copy of that policy and info on when it was voted on or how it came about. I said that I had looked on the website but could only find it as part of 6200 but no definition of it. Hill directed me to Policy 6200. Dulaney just said that there was no definition per se. I had asked what schools they were considering should be comparable. Stough and Lacy? Or would Stough only be considered comparable to other rim schools OTB? Never got an answer.
Obviously that appreciation..
Fri, 12/09/2011 - 10:06 — bpuli9999does not extend to other (more moral) areas of conduct.