Supporters of the diversity policy may have found their candidate in the District 9 school board race in Cary.
According to the latest edition of the Independent, Lois Nixon has told the weekly that she'll announce her candidacy for the open District 9 seat. Nixon is past president of Environmental Educators of N.C. and former coordinator of the Keep America Beautiful program in Wake County.
According to the Indy, Nixon is also active on the education committee of WakeUP Wake County. That group has been a vocal supporter of the school system.
Ray Martin is the only other person to have announced his candidacy for the District 9 seat being vacated by Eleanor Goettee. Martin is a Chapel Hill teacher who unsuccessfully ran for the school board in 2001.
Wake Schools Community Alliance, which probably would not back Nixon, has not endorsed a candidate yet in District 9.
The filing period for candidates starts at 8:30 a.m. Monday.
UPDATE
Included link to this week's Indy article.
Comments
What is motive for using race as weapon?
Mon, 07/06/2009 - 04:41 — designmanWhen people in Wake County, especially journalists, resort to describing individuals and organizations as “anti-diversity” they lose credibility and reveal their political bias. It is nothing more than an impotent attempt to use race as a weapon. It is disingenuous—and, frankly, lazy journalism—to suggest that those who recognize the value of community schools and parental involvement are against diversity.
Those seeking better schools in Wake County and who oppose the current reassignment/busing policies are not anti-diversity; they simply propose that diversity alone does not offer the solutions needed. Busing students for diversity sake is not the answer to the educational challenges in Wake County. In fact, Wake County schools are failing the very population of students that their busing/diversity policy is supposed to benefit. Economically Disadvantaged (ED) students in Wake County perform below state levels. If Wake’s policies were effective, they should be setting the standard for the state, but they are not.
The reality is that with Wake’s singular focus on busing for diversity, and all the conflicts and inconveniences it causes thousands of families and students in Wake County, they are ignoring the myriad of other more relevant factors that influence student success, such as connection to community, parental involvement, innovative educational approaches, highly qualified teachers, and high expectations.
Those who insist on continuing their cries of "anti-diversity" have emphatically proclaimed they do not want to be part of the solution. They make it clear that they prefer to wallow in status quo failure rather than seek educational success for all students in Wake County.
Lack of imagination
Mon, 07/06/2009 - 12:30 — SDR256Couldn't agree with you more designman. It seems to me that those who are crying 'Solution A (diversity policy) vs Solution B (anything else is just neo segregationist) have such tunnel vision they miss that there are possible Solutions C, D, E or F. Further, these narrowminded zealots are so locked into knee-jerk stereotypes they don't see that if someone was really wanted to keep at-risk down, they're should be perfectly happy with this diversity policy which is failing those children and subjects them to the bigotry of low expectations. This 'diversity policy' is stealthily keeping at risk children DOWN. Those who claim they are 'pro-diversity' astound me with how they cling to this broken wreck of an idea. Anyone who really wants to help at-risk children would want to do MORE than support this antiquaited policy which continues treat children like sacks of potatos who cannot learn and aren't worth the effort to stretch the envelope.
Supporting diversity in schools is a completely different animal than supporting at-risk children - is a completely different animal than supporting the diversity policy as implemented. Seems to me this word 'diversity' has been twisted so much it no longer has a clear meaning - if it ever was clear.
"Couldn't agree with you
Mon, 07/06/2009 - 13:18 — user1234"Couldn't agree with you more designman. It seems to me that those who are crying 'Solution A (diversity policy) vs Solution B (anything else is just neo segregationist) have such tunnel vision they miss that there are possible Solutions C, D, E or F. "
That is why it is important to go to each candidate's website and study their C, D, E, F solutions to compare against A. Everyone knows A and can study C, D, E, and F proposals to see the cost, time frame, and benefits of each.
Rules for Radicals.
Wed, 07/01/2009 - 22:16 — RiversideRealist"The "anti-diversity" moniker has worked well at assassinating the characters of other candidates and groups in the past."
- Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
Was there a disclosure statement?
Wed, 07/01/2009 - 21:58 — ApexterI read only the linked online article, and not the print edition. Was there a disclosure statement anywhere noting that Mr. Geary was one of the organizers of WakeUp Wake County?*
There's always been lots of sniping on this blog, with certain posters criticizing others, saying that they wouldn't give fair consideration to viewpoints that differed from their own stated opinions. As individuals posting our own opinions, however, I don't consider that much of a criticism. Objectivity is not a requirement in an opinion statement.
When it comes to a professional journalist presenting a story, however, I feel that it is unethical NOT to include a disclosure statement noting a relationship between the author and the subject. In this case, I think Mr. Geary's involvement with WakeUp is very relevant to his opinion about WakeUp's candidate and her opponents. How handy that his article gets to be the first announcement of her intention to run.
And, of course, his article begins with the classic framing of the candidates he opposes as "anti-diversity." As a general rule, I have seen very few parents who are against diversity; their argument is more with WCPSS's haphazard variety of methods of attempting it, its willingness to settle for seeking it for some areas of the county while ignoring the fact that their efforts are increasing the concentration of poverty in other areas, and the "we want it at any cost" priority that appears to be given to the policies when there are some very high personal and monetary costs that come along with it. The "anti-diversity" moniker has worked well at assassinating the characters of other candidates and groups in the past. I hope people will learn to see through it this time.
*http://www.indyweekblogs.com/dent/?p=374
Bob Geary's reporting
Wed, 07/01/2009 - 23:23 — CaryCurmudgeonBob Geary's reporting exceeds the grounds of bias normally reserved for an editorial section. He attends the WSCA meetings, hears many positive visions of what we want to do to improve education for ALL Wake County students, then writes his own biased opinion which resorts to hateful name-calling.
He seems to more easily embrace the spin put out by WCPSS and WEP. Simply parroting their spin is not what I would consider investigative reporting. Maybe if I worked for a "newspaper" that had to give away copies for free I would take the easy road too.
...
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 09:26 — SideburnsNot to mention that Mr. Geary's ears are closed so tightly that he can't even get Sarah Redpath's name correct.
I thought it was "Redford"
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 09:33 — CaryCurmudgeonI thought it was "Redford" ??
yeah her and that George
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 09:50 — AngelaWyeah her and that George Schula person!
Another Status Quo
Wed, 07/01/2009 - 18:39 — Jeff_morseAnother Status Quo Candidate?.?.?
Sad
Wed, 07/01/2009 - 17:27 — user1234"Wake Schools Community Alliance, which probably would not back Nixon, has not endorsed a candidate yet in District 9."
Sad ... they should talk to her before making the judgement ...
Reporter assumption
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 01:05 — cevangPerhaps Hui should be talking to the WSCA before publishing speculation.
The WSCA backing a person
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 09:18 — KeungHui (author)The WSCA backing a person from the Wake UP Wake/Wake Ed Partnership camp for school board is about as likely as the board picking Venita Peyton to fill Rosa Gill's seat. Both are theoretically possible. But if you think about it you'll see it's not likely.
Very Fair statement Keung.
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 22:52 — WhalerCaneVery Fair statement Keung.
there is NO judgement,
Wed, 07/01/2009 - 17:32 — AngelaWthere is NO judgement, those are Hui's words.(."which probably would not back Nixon".)..WSCA said NOTHING......
so STOP IT!
Hopefully, they won't
Wed, 07/01/2009 - 19:34 — user1234Hopefully, they won't restrict themselves to only Republicans like the Indy article infers...
"WSCA claims a bipartisan membership, though the list of elected officials supporting it is heavily weighted to Republicans.Wake County
The critics' issue: The school board's longstanding embrace of diversity…..It's not a new issue. Republicans inWake County have attacked busing for purposes of racial or economic balance at least since the late Sen. Jesse Helms' young aide, Tom Fetzer, first ran for mayor of Raleigh
WSCA doesn't "claim"
Wed, 07/01/2009 - 23:29 — CaryCurmudgeonWSCA doesn't "claim" bipartisanship membership, we have it. There are more Democrats on our Steering Committee than Republicans. We have endorsed two candidates thus far, one of which is Unaffiliated. The status-quo group has endorsed three candidates, one of which is Unaffiliated.
You are reading too many WEP emails. The "critics" issues are finding better solutions to MYR, improving the lackluster educational results we are seeing for ALL children, and establishing sensible assignment policies. Grouping this all under the heading of "diversity" shows the poor and biased level of reporting from this "journalist."
They haven't restricted themselves
Wed, 07/01/2009 - 22:40 — FalcOne must consider the source -- the Independent is not exactly a source known for fair, balanced and unbiased reporting.
People are wrongly going to try to make this a partisan issue to further their own agendas. Improving education should NOT be a partisan issue. They will also wrongly try to make this is into an anti-diversity issue, which it is not.
Funny how the article tried to infer that WSCA was restricting itself to Republicans considering the only Republican endorsed by WSCA at this time is Chris Malone. Deborah Prickett is not a Republican, she's an Independent (not to be confused with the "Independent" where the article appeared). As of yet, WSCA has not endorsed candidates in the other two districts. Those facts were there in the article, but the tone of the article left a different impression.
If the "reporter" were strictly reporting and not slanting, he would have stated that WSCA HAS a bipartisan membership, it doesn't just 'claim' it.
Fact Check. It has been
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 23:00 — WhalerCaneFact Check. It has been widely reported that WSCA has endorsed Chris Malone in District 1. Had him speak at their event. If they haven't, please let me know, because open discussion is always positive, and as Rita Rakestraw attended your event, she would always listen. There is more to our schools than just this economic 'diversity' policy. Even though there is a difference there, that doesn't mean there isn't common ground in other areas. Respectfully, Perry
I think maybe you didn't read my post right?
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 00:19 — FalcI said Chris Malone was the only Republican they had endorsed, not that they had not endorsed him. In any case, I think the confusion has been cleared up.
I know there is more to our schools than just the economic 'diversity' policy. I have kids in the system and I follow the issues. I know there's MYR and huge inequities with the magnet program, just for starters.
Perry, You were there
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 23:10 — CaryCurmudgeonPerry,
You were there too, but I know you had to leave the meeting early and did not catch all the presentations. Yes, the diversity policy was discussed. We also talked about magnet schools, graduation rates and MYR. I am glad to hear you agree that there is far more to the schools discussion than 'economic diversity.'
Our group has been together for six months. Our web site has been live most of that time, and we welcome discussion with anyone (that is why our meetings are open to all). Chris Malone (and others) approached us about running for school board, and we endorsed him. Why didn't Rita reach out to us?
Joe, thanks for
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 23:46 — WhalerCaneJoe,
thanks for clarifying. I thought your group had endorsed Chis, and that explains in part why she didn't 'reach out' to you, but she did attend (appologies for not staying for the end, but we had another committement), and I hope when she is successful, you continue to communicate with her. On many other issues, you may find common ground. That said, your group has made clear that the elimination of the 40% FNR goal is your top priority. That also is in part why she hasn't reach out to your group, because she is committed to maintaining that goal. Remember the slow blad penetrates the shield.
We should grab coffee sometime.
Respectfully,
Perry
Elimination of 40% FNR goal
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 10:17 — CaryCurmudgeonElimination of 40% FNR goal is not the top priority of our group, although I expect status-quo supporters will try to paint us that way. Our goals include STABILITY in assignment to schools close to home, improved education for all students, and calendar choices for all families. Most importantly, we are looking to support candidates who will value input from Wake County citizens over studies done by people out to sell books.
If Rita is committed to the status-quo assignment policy, then she was probably correct in assuming our group would not support her.
Coffee would be great, you still have my email address?
"Elimination of 40% FNR
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 11:01 — user1234"Elimination of 40% FNR goal is not the top priority of our group,"
Cary if your group stated that somewhere in a public way... press release, website, etc. it would go a long way to bridging things ... as a friendly suggestion I have tried to tell you that as an average citizen it is hard to separate the views of individual from the group without some written public communication we can all refer to …
I think everyone wants improvement. You are doing yourself and your group a disservice by lashing out and putting people into status quo and non-status quo. There are more shades of grey than that. And you will need all the diversity to build a coalition.
It feels like this election will come down to three major points fro me the average voter– reassignments, MYR, and diversity in my mind. For some it will be about taxes and not wanting to pay anymore since the schools are good enough.
While reassignments have been poorly executed they will be less an issue with no growth so while there will be some residual anger, I don’t see this issue being the main one for the general public … on MYR … the issue is that many people are not expose to it … most voters don’t have kids in school and of those most hear glowing comments from their YR neighbors so for the people affected by MYR, I think it will be a hard sell to the broader public who don’t know what “M” stands for. Finally, is diversity. Diversity is a golden term in today’s society. I think most people are amazed at Wake’s system that has relatively good schools from one side of this giant county to the other without the ghetto schools ITB other cities have. Many people will think of Charlotte, Atlanta, or Richmond as models for a system without some a policy. So, I anticipate seeing a chart in the newspaper comparing the candidates positions and diversity will be one of them and the one most people on either side will make their decision on.
Really, I don’t think diversity or the 40% policy really affects most people and should not be the cornerstone of candidates. I believe most of the reassignment fiasco was due to growth. We will see that over the next few year where there will be no large scale reason to move any kids because of the stable population. I know there are a few schools over 40% but I think many will agree to let them be if there is not easy way to change things. That is common sense. But there are plenty of schools in the middle that can be “adjusted” with a few kids here and there over the course of years. I think a common sense approach to diversity would go a long way to bridging different groups.
"Cary if your group stated
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 11:26 — CaryCurmudgeon"Cary if your group stated that somewhere in a public way"
Here is the statement from the web site:
Wake Schools Community Alliance (WSCA) supports:
This is a clear statement of objectives. There is no "bridgeing" with the status-quo supporters, the bridges we will build are with the parents who have suffered long enough under the current policies. There is nothing we could put on our web site which would make Stan & Company say "Gee, those folks really do make a good case" so let's drop the charade of all of this great advice on how to make the web site better. Maybe you are still making up your mind. But Stan, Perry and the rest have no interest whatsoever in helping WSCA.
“Maybe you are still
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 12:39 — user1234“Maybe you are still making up your mind. But Stan, Perry and the rest have no interest whatsoever in helping WSCA.”
Again a friendly suggestion because you are obviously more experienced politically than me … but Stan and Perry (don’t know them) are only two votes … I am one and the most I could must is 300 more writing for my community newsletter concerning what I learn from you and your website … but really the big block of voters will be the voters with no kids in school and no current knowledge of WCPSS … they are not for or against you … they just don’t know … they are not status quo enemies just people who feel things are good enough …
...
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 13:08 — SideburnsQuit pretending you are politically disconnected and completely naive to the workings of WCPSS. Changing your name (ncdad, user1234, askmisterbrown) does not change who you are.
Bitter
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 14:43 — user1234How is it you can take a compliment and turn it into a jab?
You seem to live and breathe Wake politics but not all of us do.
Who I am is just an average voter trying to understand the issues and who to vote for through a discussion of the issues with a wide group of people.
Elimination of the 40%,
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 11:39 — g88ky07"Yeah, I'd say the
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 12:43 — user1234"Yeah, I'd say the elimination of the "diversity agenda" is equal to all those, even if you didn't ask me! "
Not sure why you would make elimination of divesity a central issue when you other points above are more compelling and less devisive.
They ALL play a role
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 16:46 — g88ky07They ALL play a role in the reform that is long overdue and about to take place, but mostly because I like divisiveness!
"M"less
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 17:00 — user1234Hey, that is two posts in a row from you without a M (bolded M) somewhere in the text. :-)
Sorry
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 22:30 — g88ky07they should've been "F"s!
Falc, Kids are not a
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 09:31 — CaryCurmudgeonFalc,
Kids are not a partisan issue. The only people who are trying to make them a partisan issue are those who are struggling to hold on to the status quo, ie. the Stan Norwalk stable of candidates, WEP and the "journalists" who prop them up.
And that is because they have NOTHING ELSE to campaign on. There is no bragging about our excellent test scores, closing of the achievement gap or graduation rates. The strongest support for status-quo comes from New York and Maryland, not here in Wake County.
Totally agree
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 11:34 — FalcWhen I said "People" will try to make it a partisan issue, I meant Stan, WEP and those "journalists." I know kids are not a partisan issue and I know WSCA knows it.
You are correct that they have nothing to campaign on except fearmongering about resegregation, trying to paint WSCA as something it is not, and twisting the issues into this "if you do not support the status quo, you are anti-diversity" garbage.
Admitting the "other" side ACTUALLY IS a group of Dems, Reps, and Independents working together toward improving education for ALL students is a losing proposition for them, so they are firing up the SPIN machine.
Oh Please
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 19:22 — chaboard"When I said "People" will try to make it a partisan issue, I meant Stan, WEP and those "journalists."
Let's get real.....the Wake County *Republicans* have already made it very clear that they plan on trying to make partisan hay out of this. They've already put out press releases that come out and say so...and they've already gotten involved with sleazy mud-slinging. Remember the insane stunt of questioning the patriotism of the board?
You can't find anything remotely along those lines from Stan or the Dems. It won't surprise me if the pro-board side DOES end up ramping up the partisanship.....but it's downright dishonest to pretend that it's not the anti- side that's already there and way out in front on it.
The Democratic party has not taken an official position on any of the races as far as I know. The Republican party has.
Oh Please
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 01:03 — FalcDown, chaboard. I don't hunt down and read press releases put out by the county chapter of either party and this isn't a party issue to me. So, I don't know what the Reps have said.
I think what WSCA is trying to do as a bipartisan group is very positive. We need more of people from the whole spectrum coming together, not less. So far, the people I have seen trying to discredit them are coming only from the Dem side.
As for mud-slinging, I did see what was said at that meeting in February where Stan was one of the speakers and I do NOT appreciate being called a racist just because I think the 'diversity' policy and the current BOE is flawed. I've heard WEP's positions and the article in the Indy IMO was slanted and I am entitled to my opinion on that.
When I was in HS we had to take a survey in Civics class that told you where you were on the political spectrum. My results were moderate Democrat, but then I went to a liberal college and got so turned off by people there that acted just like you and Stan that I could never bring myself to be a Dem.
C'mon Falc
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 08:09 — chaboardYou didn't have to "hunt down" the press releases to know about them. They caused a huge kerfluffle just a month ago HERE on this blog which you obviously DO read. Not to mention big articles in the the N&O.
It may not be partisan to you. And WCSA may genuinely be trying to act in a bipartisan fashion. But that doesn't change the two facts I've pointed out here - namely:
1. fact that a big portion of the "anti" side IS trying hard to make this partisan. Even "Mudge" argeed that it was happening and lamented it,
2. the fact that it IS reasonable to assume from WCSA's website (which is its most acessible face to the general public)that it must be a mostly GOP group
Assuming the claims of bipartisan steering committee are true (and I have no reason to doubt them) WCSA could fix #2 in ten minutes by simply updating their website. It would take less time than several members have already spent arguing about it in this thread.
#1 is a much bigger problem for your side. It's going to be hard to convince the public you're a bipartisan movement if you're willingly working alongside a bunch of GOP politicos who are making no bones about wanting to use this issue for their own gain. You missed a very big opportunity (asnd failed a big test, imo) when the organizatoon did not publicly denounce the Wake Republicans for trying to question the patriotism of the school board. I know individual members spoke out against it here (tip of the hat to Joe/MUdge) but to the best of my recollection WCSA was NOT willing as a group to denounce either those tactics or that introduction of partisanship into the races. And high profile disassociations of that type are what you are going to have to do if you want the public to believe that your mvement is not partisan. That's just the way it is.
So,
Sat, 07/04/2009 - 01:39 — Falcnow you call me a liar. Think what you want. I didn't read them.
"anti" side. I don't see those who want reform from the current situation as the anti-side. I see it as the pro-side. Pro- educational improvement for ALL students, pro-stability, pro-not having five year olds on a bus for over an hour one way, pro-community, pro-innovation, pro-fiscal responsibility, pro-family. From what I have seen over the years, I consider your side the anti- of those things.
"it IS reasonable to assume from WCSA's website..."
Assumptions aren't reasonable -- they make an A-- of U and ME. Surely, you've heard that one.
"You missed a very big
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 09:21 — SideburnsWSCA i s a p a r e n t g r o u p.
Our goal is to elect 4 new School Board members. Period. All our efforts are directed towards that goal.
It seems hard for you (and user) to believe that there are many parents who don't want to play politics yet have been driven to stand up for change in our school system. Maybe it hasn't been done before but it's happening now.
Nope
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 09:03 — Dadof3Re #1: Wake Co. Republicans are making this partisan not WSCA. That's a tautology.
Re #2: No it isn't reasonable at all. But it makes for a convenient strawman.
“People are wrongly
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 08:52 — user1234“People are wrongly going to try to make this a partisan issue to further their own agendas. Improving education should NOT be a partisan issue. They will also wrongly try to make this is into an anti-diversity issue, which it is not. “
That is not bad if there are only two main issues – being partisan and diversity since both can be neutralized easily.
If the WSCA board, candidates and supporters cross the spectrum from liberal to conservative with the common interest of improving the schools that in one down. I have not checked the WSCA website to count the number of Rep vs. Dem on the board so I don’t know if that is true. If it comes out that WSCA is being secretly funded / supported by Republicans to push an anti-diversity agenda that will be serious blow. Second, once WSCA states a position on diversity, health schools, and their thoughts on segregating into high and low income schools without a policy that item will be taken care of too.
One down
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 12:09 — Falc"If the WSCA board, candidates and supporters cross the spectrum from liberal to conservative with the common interest of improving the schools that in one down."
They do cross the spectrum and have that common interest. They know that from TALKING TO one another, you know what people used to do before computers and blogs. You can't go on their website and count the number of Dems or Reps. WSCA does not ask for personal information like policitical affiliation, marital status, ethnicity, etc. to sign-up as a member. Why would they and what group posts the personal information of its members on a website anyway?
WSCA has posted information on its website about mission and philosophy, etc.
"You can't go on their
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 14:44 — user1234"You can't go on their website and count the number of Dems or Reps. WSCA does not ask for personal information like policitical affiliation, marital status, ethnicity, etc. to sign-up as a member. Why would they and what group posts the personal information of its members on a website anyway? "
Not the individual donors but the affilation of the officers ....e.g. on website ...Don Frantz, Keith Weatherly, Ron Margiotta, Lisa Boneham, Vinnie DeBenedetto, Dick Sears, Ronnie Williams
I think you are confusing endorsements with officers
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 16:20 — Falcand I think you may be confusing officers with the members of the steering committee.
As far as the steering committee goes they've already said it's a mix of political affiliations and there are more Dems than Reps. Does the exact count matter?
For that matter, if someone agrees with the values, mission, philosophy, etc. of the organization knowing there are X Dems and Y Reps and Z Unaffiliated shouldn't make a difference to someone who truly appreciates diversity.
If user1234 really wanted to
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 16:44 — CaryCurmudgeonIf user1234 really wanted to know the party affiliation of steering committee members, he/she/it could spend five minutes on the WakeGov web site and find that out. But user seems to be more interested in generating accusations cloaked in questions than finding out more information.
OK Joe, I'm Not User But I'll Ask....
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 19:30 — chaboard....how?
I tried to identify the officers a few wees ago but couldn't find that info on the WCSA website, so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to find them on the WakeGov site.
Why not clearly identify the leadership on your group's own website? The only names I see there are the Endorsers" and those are ALL either Republican politicians or anonymous internet people as far as I can tell.
Even the John Locke foundation was forced to note that WCPSS is good at transparency....shouldn't its critics strive to be so too?
Charlie, We don't have
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 21:46 — CaryCurmudgeonCharlie,
We don't have "officers" (ie. no stinkin' badges). We have a group of around ten volunteers which we loosely refer to as the steering committee. There is no President, etc. Just a bunch of concerned parents who are trying to drive change in our school system. No one in this group is a politico.
We don't post the names of steering committee members on our web site for a couple of reasons.
First and foremost, this is not about a handful of people. We are no more or less important than anyone else who signed on.
Second, because we simply don't have too. The already-decided people like user1234 will continue to portray us as jack-booted neocons (reference his other posts which make broad assumptions). Frankly, the more they do that, the more they discredit themselves. We come under constant attack from the user1243's of the world, and from those who would sooner die than consider changing the paradigm. Most intelligent people see through those accusations, and they do not resonate well. We believe that citizens are already wondering why the status-quo supporters are so hell-bent on attacking our group, versus promoting what they view as important WCPSS accomplishments. They should be making hay with the John Locke report. Even when they go off-topic and actually talk about what's going on in schools, they discredit themselves. Witness the recent farcical report of busing distances for wcpss students. They used data that was two years old, and the distances were straight line. Even the N&O reported that their distance study was a feeble attempt at misleading the public.
Ours is a grassroots approach. We conduct face-to-face community meetings. We use our real names. With one exception, every steering committee member's name has shown up in the press (Even Sarah Redfern's). We know who we are. If others want to make different assumptions, they are probably doing so with inherent bias, and would not have supported our cause anyway. But there sure are plenty of other people out there that see things the same way we do.
...
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 20:09 — SideburnsWSCA has held meetings at various locations throughout Wake County. Members of the steering committee attended and spoke at all those meetings. We actually introduce ourselves using our real names. (Shocking, huh?) You obviously don't care enough to find out who we are -- or you are just having a slow Thursday.
WSCA is made up of parents - not people with political aspirations, not people looking for their names in print, not people with hidden agendas. Parents. It's not that difficult to understand.
(BTW, I think Mudge was referring to finding those who endorse WSCA on wakegov.com.)
Fine
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 20:45 — chaboardSo if you're willing to speak and introduce yourselves with your real names then why not put them on the website?
The bottom line is that - as far as I could tell - pretty much all the real live person names on the website (which IS the most accessible public face of the group) are Republican politicos. Combine that with the fact that the Republican party has jumped in with both feet to try to make this a partisan election and you really can't complain that people are being unfair in assuming your organization is mostly Republican. If you don't want them assuing that then you have to get information out there where people can find it rather than bitching and moaning that they'd know if they cam and talked to you.