What will the impact be on high school graduates if the Wake County school board votes tonight to pull out of AdvancED rather than cooperate with the review team?
As noted in today's article, Wake school board attorney Ann Majestic said it's a “gross generalization” to say in blanket terms that it’s a problem for high schools to lose their accreditation." Based on what some college admissions officials are saying, students may notice the impact if they apply to colleges outside the state that may not be as familiar with Wake.
Loss of accreditation can make it harder for students to earn admission to some colleges. It also could make it more difficult for students to take part in certain grant, scholarship and military programs.
Wake school officials have been researching the question of the importance of accreditation and say that both Duke University at the UNC system say that a student from an unaccredited school would not be turned down for that reason. But admissions officials say it's not as simple as that.
“Bottom line: If a student is otherwise a compelling applicant in all the ways — academic and personal — we consider our applicants, the single fact of that student not attending an accredited school alone wouldn’t keep us from admitting him or her,” said Cristoph Guttentag, dean of undergraduate admissions at Duke University. "That doesn’t mean we don’t care about accreditation or lack thereof; but we care about what accreditation or its absence means.”
Stephen Farmer, director of undergraduate admissions at UNC-Chapel Hill, said the college does require that applicants have graduated from a high school that is “accredited or approved.”
“Even without accreditation, we’d have a pretty good understanding – from a distance, of course – of the kind of education offered by various schools in Wake County and in the system as a whole,” Farmer said.
But Farmer said there could be consequences from Wake not having accreditation.
“The loss of accreditation may hurt more with universities that don’t know the system as well as we do," Farmer said. "And in the longer term, the loss of accreditation could be much more problematic even with us, if the result is that families lose faith in the system and remove their sons and daughters, or that the schools themselves begin to deteriorate,"
Wake could try to delay the loss of accreditation until the end of the school year. Wake could also try to see if it can be accredited by some other organization, which could take some time. Four of the six big regional accreditation associations are not affiliated with AdvancED.
Comments
Accreditation appears to have a lifespan
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 19:09 — WadingInIf the school system's accreditation is withdrawn, Elgard says AdvancED would recommend the system to do so effective the end of the school year "so the current class of seniors in Wake County high schools is not affected by such a decision."
The above quote is from the NBC17 story (link below). It appears to imply that accreditation has a lifespan (i.e. dropping the use of the service (AdvancED) does not instantaneously drop accreditation of school). Since the WSPSS HS schools appear to be on a 5 year re-accreditation schedule, what is the maximum date we can set the effective date?
see-www2.nbc17.com/news/2011/jan/11/14/wake-co-high-schools-risk-losing-accreditation-ar-686452/
Charter school cap
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 20:59 — Solon77The republican assembly looking to remove/increase the charter school cap could not come at a better time.
Nice to see your neighbors finally get on board
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 22:10 — FSandYOUNow that something makes them mad, they decide to play along with the very thing many have wanted here for years. We'll all benefit from their Johnny-come-lately attitudes.
Disappointing...
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:11 — Bob_SconceI read the print article and there was a single sentence, "beneath the fold" about AdvanceEd's denying their right to an attorney. That issue occupied the first two paragraphs of Majestic's original letter, and related to two out of the three requests she made in that letter. It's central to the current dispute, yet is barely mentioned!
Up until now, the board has been going along (grudgingly) with AdvanceEd's overly-broad scope. But, this issue has derailed that. The issue should be front-and-center, not hidden.
Lawyer can be present
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 15:41 — WhalerCaneBob,
The issue isn't that a Lawyer can't observe, but they want them to advise. Why Lawyer Up!. Can't stand independent scrutiny. This isn't even a review of policy, but a review of how they make decisions. The just re-accredited Charlotte Mech for goodness sake. Gov. Purdue of Georgia, pretty conservative himself, removed a couple of school board members for refusing to go along with this process.
Look even if you want to make Advance Ed the bad guy, and want to go to another accrediting agency, this would be an absolutly idiotic idea to drop this accrediation before the other is acquired. Go throught the process, and if you don't like it, say so, and work to find another agency. IT HURTS STUDENTS, particularly junior and seniors to drop accredidation now.
Lawyering Up and working to avoid independent scrutiny; there is listening to the public, transparency, and putting students first for you.
?
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 16:16 — Bob_SconceI'm still undecided about the accreditation -- had it not been for the lawyer thing, I'd oppose dropping it. But, AdvanceEd's hard line on that is very troubling.
"Lawyering up," as you call it, is the prerogative of the person being interviewed. And, as to the question of "why" -- it's because the questions are going to touch on things that are under investigation by the OCR or which would be at issue in an NAACP suit. The NAACP and/or the OCR are going to scrutinize whatever the board majority says and use it to the detriment of the district. The purpose of having the lawyer there is to minimize that risk.
Can you give me one good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have the assistance of counsel? Yeah, it may slow things down a little bit -- for example, the lawyer may ask them to rephrase a question so it's clear what's being asked (and, so, after the fact, there isn't any disagreement about what was meant.) But, I don't think that minor increase in time justifies excluding the lawyers from participating.
Because....
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:35 — chaboardCan you give me one good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have the assistance of counsel?
....it lends an adversarial stance to a process that's supposed to be collegial, based on trust and respect, and mutually beneficial.
You know, there's always a chance that my next medical apointment could end up in court. And if it does it would certainly be to my advantage to have had my lawyer there with me to vet my interactions with the doctor. But I'm pretty sure every doctor I've ever known would tell me to bugger off if I actually tried to bring one with me to my next physical. Same thing. We've paid AdvanceEd to provide a service and now we want to lawyer up and treat them as adversaries when they fullfill their obligation to us?
Pfft...
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 20:48 — Bob_SconceThere's no equivalence there.
There's no reason that having the lawyer there needs to make the process be advesarial -- I've been in plenty of meetings where lawyers contributed to the discussion. It's only when the parties are advesaries that it has to be advesarial.
Can you give me one good
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 17:16 — jenmanCan you give me one good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have the assistance of counsel?
--------------------------------------------------
That's a really great question and one that I don't think anybody has touched on.
Also, can anybody explain why how the school board governs is relevant to the creditation of high schools? I could understand some of these things being relevant if we were asking for a district accreditation. But individual high schools? That doesn't make sense to me.
Because if the board is not
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 17:28 — virginiadareBecause if the board is not governing appropriately, for example: if they are ignoring policies, not getting input from stakeholders, not following state law, showing favoritism in choosing school sites or the bidding process, or other such actions, what is to keep them from making a possibly detrimental decision that would affect the individual schools that they are the governing board for, on a whim? If the governance is not appropriate, the entire system and each school within the system is in danger. That is what the accrediting agency is trying to prevent. They are there to make the system better, not to be controversial.
And ....
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 17:52 — Bob_SconceIf they made a "possibly detrimental dcision that would affect the individual schools . . . on a whim," then I think they would probably be violating standards 2.1, 2.2 or 2.3. UNTIL that time, though, they are not doing so. At most, AdvanceEd could say, "Look, we don't like how you make decisions. But, lucky for you, your decision processes haven't yet violated any of our standards. So, your accreditation is intact."
Their job is *NOT* to make the system better -- their job is to ensure that WCPSS schools adhere to a set of 7 standards. And, only ONE of those standards (#2) discusses the activities of the governing board. WCPSS has not requested district-wide accreditation, and it is inappropriate for AdvanceEd to be applying district accreditation standards.
7 Standards of AndancedED
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:38 — RKCurtrightDoes the job of AdvancedED help WCPSS in ensuring that their schools adhere to those 7 standards? Do these 7 standards lead to a better school system and high academic standards? It sounds like WCPSS and AdvancedED have the same goals and together should embrace this investigation.
Standards 1-7
Vision and Purpose
Governance and Leadership
Teaching and Learning
Documenting and Using Results
Resources and Support Systems
Stakeholder Communication and Relationships
Commitment to Continuous Improvement
This is quite a stretch.
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 17:48 — starsonoursThis is quite a stretch. "What is to keep them from making a possibly detrimental decision that would affect the individual schools?" Is that what the new standard is what you may possibly do in the future? How do you determine if someone will make a detrimental decision in the future? Is this a written policy of AdvancED?
...
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 17:59 — Sideburns"How do you determine if someone will make a detrimental decision in the future?"
In virginia's world, anyone who isn't a Democrat is destined to make a detrimental decision in the future. That's what she really means.
Yet, we know you are a
Thu, 01/13/2011 - 12:22 — WhalerCaneYet, we know you are a Democrat. :-)
...
Thu, 01/13/2011 - 12:49 — SideburnsSo, I'm destined for perfection. :)
Isn't this investigation an opportunity ?
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 17:23 — RKCurtrightWe pay to be accredited. This means they insure we educate by the highest of standards. AdvancED District Accreditation provides a service to work with school districts to help find improvements in school districts in increasing student achievement. It involves improving instruction and evaluating the district, school, and classroom working together to meet the needs of students.
AdvancedED is investigating. They can give feedback that will help us be the best school district we can be. Getting input from an established system is why we pay them and why we are accredited.
This is an opportunity for our School Board and Mr. Tata to be open to listening and learning.
After the investigation is the best time to decide if they did their job and their input will make Our BOE stronger District leaders.
We can all agree we care about WCPSS becuase we want al students to get th best educational opportunity available. Is it in every student’s best interest to let our accreditation go before they investigate our school system?
Showing a willingness to be investigated and evaluated will be a positive direction for WCPSS and our School Board. My hope is that our BOE and Mr. Tata not shy away from this. It is an opportunity to embrace.
...
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 21:38 — SideburnsBTW, we don't have district accreditation.
"This means they insure we
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 21:27 — woodstock"This means they insure we educate by the highest of standards."
You are deluded. It does not mean that at all. Even terrible schools are accredited.
Showing a willingness to be investigated
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:28 — FSandYOUwith all the side shows currently going on around this school board, all because a select few are stuck in the 60's and can't seem to break free of its racist grip, is not wise for this board or our children.
Bob, I didn't see the print
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:14 — CaryCurmudgeonBob,
I didn't see the print story, was there any mention of the fact that the NAACP initiated this whole investigation?
It's online
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:38 — Bob_SconceIt's the same version of the story that's posted now:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/01/12/915108/wake-board-may-drop-accreditation.html
The story does mention the NAACP complaint.
If they didn't, it would be
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:48 — woodstockIf they didn't, it would be like a story on a town being flooded, but failing to mention the burst dam that caused the flood. In fact, the headline should read somethig like "NAACP's Race Hustling Tactics and Accusations Lead to Partisan Witch Hunt."
That is exactly right! This
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:39 — woodstockThat is exactly right! This is how the N&O works day in and day out. They may present the news, but in many, many subtle and not so subtle ways they slant it to their extreme left-wing ideology. Overtime this tactic makes an enormous difference in the impression/message their "news" presents.
extremely disappointed
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:20 — loriacI agree, it should have driven the tone of the article, especially given AdvancEd's call for 'collegiality'. Sorry Keung, this article gets a D.
However, it's the N&O, heaven forbid they do anything to stop the feeding frenzy that's going on right now. I am extremely disappointed.
If a HS student takes
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:05 — DrActualFactualIf a HS student takes Advanced Placement (AP) courses but the school is not accredited via school or district-wide status then I would doubt the credits would be accepted by the university/college they apply to local or out-of-state. Would the district continue to offer AP courses if this is the case? Would kids want to take them knowing they will have to do all the work again in college? The minority members that worked with the NAACP to put this barrier up will surely be remembered come election time, and I doubt it would fly in their favor.
The minority members that
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 13:24 — jenmanThe minority members that worked with the NAACP to put this barrier up will surely be remembered come election time, and I doubt it would fly in their favor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad to see somebody else mention this. While everybody focuses on the NAACP and the BOE majority as being the obstinate ones, the minority members have a role in all of this too. I really can't understand how anybody can not see how at least *some* of the things that AdvancED is asking for are suspect. I'd like to hear one of the minority members agree that the inquiry seems a bit overreaching or that they agree the board should have legal representation during the interviews. They can still think (and say) we need to comply and that it is an important matter for our students.
It seems that they, along with supporters like GSIW, are so hell bent on stopping the new board majority that they are willing to fully support a method that is not only suspect but could have serious ramifications for students.
You nailed it. We have the
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 13:37 — CaryCurmudgeonYou nailed it. We have the Raleigh Chamber and Mayor railing against the school board at every opportunity. Today we made the Washington Post front page, before that it was the NY Times. The Chamber/Mayor seem so hell bent on derailing the school board that they don't consider the negative publicity of their actions and it's possible effect on growth in Wake County.
If I were a member of the business community hoping for growth to come our way, I'd have asked Harvey Schmidt to stop publicly undermining our school system. Come to think of it, I haven't seen any public statements from Mr. Schmidt for a while, so maybe someone already had that conversation with him.
Yeah, maybe Meeker and
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 16:35 — woodstockYeah, maybe Meeker and Schmitt should have been paying more attention to Progress Energy so that they wouldn't have been blindsided by the recent decision.
I've been surprised that
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 17:11 — jenmanI've been surprised that those two haven't figured out a way to blame it all on the new BOE.
Wow Joe, This after you
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 15:48 — WhalerCaneWow Joe,
This after you guys have spent years running down WCPSS and decrying any award they have recieved.
You might consider that it is this Board's actions they are writing about. You are right, perception matters, and this will hurt our economy, but you are blaming the messenger, and not these guys that continually act in a rash arrogant matter that is outside the norm of accepted practices that is bringing disrepute to our community.
They could have brought about change without becoming a parody of what they proported to represent.
Perry, My point was that I
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 16:19 — CaryCurmudgeonPerry,
My point was that I find it ironic that the people who get paid to prop up our school system have become consumed with fighting the school board -- to the detriment of Wake County growth. These folks could find ways to fight the school board without creating the race-baited media circus that we have now. Heck, they can set their sights on fighting the school board at the ballot box, like we did. I think even you would admit that Meeker's statement mocking people who aren't from around here is one he wish he could take back.
My priority is getting the best education for the kids in Wake County, not attracting new business. I lose no sleep over a Washington Post story.
Joe, I care about education
Thu, 01/13/2011 - 12:27 — WhalerCaneJoe,
I care about education our kids greatly, but our economy does matter. You hope your kid can get a job here when he graduates.
It takes two to tango to make a media circus my friend, and if this Board acted in a more professional and methodicacl manner intead of continually 'ripping off the band aid', we would not be here.
As to the Mayor's comment, I have publicly chastised him for it. It was actually directed at the Board and not at all from New Jersery. I have repeatedly stated a more effective way to have stated it woud be, 'We are glad all these people have moved here from New Jersey. They have contributed to our community greatly. That said, they moved here for a reason, and it is hard to understand why they would want to turn us into New Jersey with highly segregated, very expensive schools."
Voters
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:02 — HereWeGoI keep hearing that the school board is just doing what the voters wanted – did the voters want a school system that is not accredited?
AdvancED is an accreditation
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:45 — woodstockAdvancED is an accreditation organization turned political hit squad orchestrated by the NAACP. That is something that will not be tolerated by rational individuals.
According to the...
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:30 — bpuli9999school board sycophants on this forum - yes.
If the accrediting group is BS
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:24 — FSandYOUthen yes.
They say this isn't a legal proceeding and legal representation isn't necessary. With all the scum that has attached itself to the very reason this BS accrediting group is here, I wouldn't cross the road without legal counsel at this point.
Agreed...
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:33 — Bob_SconceI don't think accreditation is BS. But. . .
Given that set of circumstances, any attorney would have a heart attack if he was told that he couldn't participate in the interviews.
The Board has shown willingness to give up on its hard-line of "only things directly related to accreditation," which is a defensible position. But, AdanceEd is unwilling to give up this hard line, which is thoroughly indefensible.
That's the way...
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:29 — bpuli9999the world works. Didn't the old BoE majority do the same when they had the majority? It's time for the BoE to stop being stupid and bend over. AdvancED loses one system (they don't care). Some posters seem to think that this BoE is going to be the leader of the revolution against AdvancED - not going to happen - most school board members are not stupid like ours seem to be). The school system loses a lot and more importantly the current batch of high-schoolers potentially a whole lot more.
I hope the BoE folks come to their senses and stop acting like immature morons. (Not sure if they can stop being morons though).
Exaggertaing to support your argument
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:29 — Dove314I read the emails. It seems to me you are exaggerating the position of AdvancEd to bolster your arguments to prevent the audit. In the email response from AdvancED, they indicate:
"The focus of the review is on the standards and criteria for accreditation. The review will not be focused on the ongoing matter between the school system and the Office of Civil Rights. Outside of the mere fact that such a matter is ongoing we shall not make any determination, opinion, or observation related to such a matter. We have conducted reviews of schools and school systems that are concurrently involved in a legal matter. Our teams are instructed to refrain from any comment or observation related to the legal matter. Our teams are trained to focus on applying only the accreditation criteria in the review process.
It is quite evident that the board and system leadership have pre-determined the outcome of the review team’s visit. As I have repeatedly stated the review team will not tell the board they cannot adopt a particular policy. As was stated quite clearly in our meeting, the outcome of this visit will not be to inform the board that they cannot assign students to attend schools in a certain manner. We accredit over 25% of the nation’s public schools and there are numerous structures/policies that system’s use to assign students to schools."
Yet you act as though AdvancED does not acknowledge there are related legal issues and have put forth directions on how they will be handled.
And for those commenting that AdvancED doesn't like WCPSS because of the assignment controversy, how do you get around the last sentence quoted from the letter?
So...
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:28 — Bob_SconceThey said "Our teams are instructed to refrain from any comment or observations related to the legal matter." They did not say "Our teams are instructed to refrain from asking any questions which might relate to the legal matter," which is what Majestic asked for. The purpose of having the attorney there is to advise the WCPSS person, NOT to keep AdvanceEd from saying things.
Here's an example: AdvanceEd is looking into how the board made decisions regarding student assignment. That's also part of the OCR probe. They could ask "What information did you use in deciding to reassign students from Stough to Lacy?" Then, whatever the person being interviewed said would be picked up by the OCR. That's why Majestic's letter wanted them to stay away from topics of current litigation and wanted to allow an attorney to participate. What possible reason could AdvanceEd have for disagreeing with that?
I'll answer that question: I don't think that they have some nefarious reason -- I just think they're just being obstinate. If their obstinance didn't prejudice the district's legal position, I would say that the district should just bend over and suck it up. (In fact, if you look at yesterday's thread, you'll see I said exactly that up until I found out about the legal issue.) But, I'm not nearly as willing to let AdvanceEd hurt the district's legal position.
I don't think your last question was pointed at me, so I'll leave it for others.
Too bad we need a legal position
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 15:50 — WhalerCaneHow come then it is standard procedure for these reviews not to be handled like a deposition?
So...
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 16:19 — Bob_SconceThis is a unique circumstance in that there are two OCR investigations (only one of which is really relevant) and threatened litigation from the NAACP. If it weren't for that, I'd agree with you.
Exactly.
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 17:07 — jenmanExactly.
Why would AvancED tell WCPSS
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:55 — starsonoursWhy would AvancED tell WCPSS they can't have representation during the interviews? If they are not going to ask anything that could place the system in legal jeopardy why would they care if an Attorney sits their to object if the questions are out of line? They have promised to "refrain" from asking such questions, it does not say "shall not".
Short sighted BOE
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:03 — Apexcitizen1Bob,
Good points.
What I'm seeing here is a BOE that can't think beyond the short term and only in a reactive manor. This is another clear sign that the chairman should be replaced. I honestly think even Mr. Tedesco would be a better chair. My question is why didn't this plan B of seeking alternate accreditation surface until this week? They should have been looking for alternate accreditation sources long before last week and if they have they should have gotten it out there in the public domain much earlier. It would be acceptable to tell parents we're severing our ties with AdvanceEd and then saying we've ready to go with group X which we feel will be just as good for our students. Its not acceptable to say the week of the audit, we may cut our ties and then look at others. They ignorantly put all their eggs in one basket because their so caught up in their singular mission of ending the diversity policy. Their ignorance now can now have an impact on students. Negotiate in good faith, but have your plan B ready if negotiations breakdown. This is another example where they missed an opportunity to take the high road and ended up on the low road. The BOE and their budgeting process is going down the same path sad to say.
So...
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:30 — Bob_SconceWhy do you think that they haven't been looking at alternates? Didn't today's article quote Tedesco, who said that they've been investigating them?
Secret Plans?
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 17:46 — Apexcitizen1Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think your advocating that the BOE secretly select a new accreditation association. That is what you implied that Tedesco was doing. One thing is clear General Tata certainly needs to give the majority a quick less in contingency planning and transparency.
What's next build the budget on Tedesco's kitchen table?
My guess is that the new accreditation will be through the Civatas Institute.
I don't think he said he
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 13:08 — ncellagatorI don't think he said he didn't believe the board wasn't looking at alternatives only that the Board could have disclosed that to the public. What difference would it make to the investigation if the Board simply informed the people for whom they serve of the options that were being explored? It wouldn't make any difference other than maybe a reply from AdvancEd that the school system is within it's own right and jurisdiction to look at an alternative. Though on the other hand, it could be difficult now to secure a new agency with a departure not in good standing . This board serves the public and their oath states they will act in the best interest of every student-not just the ones of those that elected them or within their own district. How does jeopardizing accreditation serves the best interest anyone? The parents of high school students that are on the door step of graduation should be kept abreast of their child's educational status. So far no one has any direct answer on the impact to losing or giving up accreditation status but if you had a senior in high school would you not want someone from the school system assuring you and giving you confirmed information on the impact? I simply don't understand why it seems this board can't do anything without creating drama. And I'm not talking about the drama from the opposing views. There are simple things common sense and dare I say it just simply polite things they could do to avoid the chaos but it just seems they love the drama and the news feed. Me-I'm sick of it and find myself using the actions of the entire board as a teaching point for my children on how not to conduct themselves in public.
"I simply don't understand
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 13:17 — woodstock"I simply don't understand why it seems this board can't do anything without creating drama."
What?! Think again; who is creating the drama? The BoE has done nothing dramatic, it is only the reaction of the extreme left-wing race hustlers that has created the drama. As Tata said, it is time to seperate emotion from fact.