The new Wake County school board majority is flexing its muscles with the new board committee assignments.
Members of the new board majority are leading nearly every major committee. For instance Debra Goldman will chair the policy committee that will review the proposed changes to the diversity policy. She's also got the human resources committee.
John Tedesco will chair the student assignment advisory committee and the economically disadvantaged student performance task force. Deborah Prickett is chairing student achievement and Chris Malone has the facilities committee.
Of the board minority, Keith Sutton and Carolyn Morrison fared the best. Sutton is in charge of the finance committee and is vice chair of two committees. Morrison is in charge of the legislative committee and vice chair of two committees.
Both Sutton and Morrison are relatively new members appointed to fill vacancies last summer,
In contrast, veteran board members Kevin Hill and Anne McLaurin aren't chairs or vice chairs of any committee. Hill is only on the human resources committee while McLaurin is a member of the facilities and policy committees.
Tedesco is on five committees. All the other new board members are on at least three committees.
School board chairman Ron Margiotta, who set the committees, is an ex officio member of all the committees.
Comments
I agree that Kevin Hill and
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 17:00 — Eric_BI agree that Kevin Hill and Anne McLaurin should have been placed on at least 3 committees like the others, however, Keith Sutton and Carolyn Morrison are well-represented.
Mr. Sutton is chair of the Finance committee, and vice-chair of the ED Student Performance Task Force and Human Resources committees.
Ms. Morrison is vice-chair of the Student Achievement and Student Assignment committees and is the sole member of the Legislative Committee and the representative to the NC School Boards Association.
I really don't see this as a major snub to the 4 members in the minority. Clearly these 4 members are well represented on all the committees. They hold between 1/2 to 1/4 of the seats on all committees (excluding the single-member committees).
serious?
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 00:19 — pmCan either of you elaborate on what exactly this board has done that is annoying?
Ron meeting with the 4 newly elected board members before that first meeting. While technically legal, clearly in poor form.
Continuing to add agenda items without due notice.
Adding agenda items without providing documentation.
Voting on a timeline to roll out a survey only to have Ron bump it up [and then %@&# it up].
Assign chairs in the manner in which they were.
And I am hearing a lot more people talking about WCPSS than I ever have, and the voices are not happy.
Agreed. I think a lot of people were put off by the fact that the old board was moving kids around too much. But they get the feeling that this new board, in an effort to "act on their campaign promises" are going to cause more havock in the process.
Agreed, I am hearing the
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 10:05 — carson79Agreed, I am hearing the same things. A lot of people supported a new approach, but didn't want complete upheaval or a strict neighborhood schools policy or even complete removal of diversity from student assignment policy - just a shift in priorities.
carson79, Tell me what a
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 10:15 — shearertwcarson79,
Tell me what a "strict neighborhood schools" policy looks like? I live in a nice neighborhood. My neighborhood basically surrounds an elementary school on 3 sides. However, there is nowhere near enough ES aged kids to fill up that school. Across the street from my neighborhood is a fairly large, low income section of town. The people that live there are part of my community and I would fully expect their children to attend school with mine under any logical assignment plan. There may be a few high income neighborhoods that are large enough to fill up and ES or two, perhaps Preston in Cary. Likewise on the low income side. Do we really need all then nonsense, wasted time and money associated with the diversity policy (that has not worked) just to break up those isolated Davis Drives, etc? Let our schools be naturaly distributed. If a particular school has issues, lets tackle them as a community instead of sweeping them under the rug.
I Talk Too!
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 09:40 — JanisTangoAnd I am hearing a lot more people talking about WCPSS than I ever have, and the voices are not happy.
I've been talking to a lot of parents, grandparents, and even strangers standing in line to see Santa and the majority of them are thrilled that there is a change on this board. Most of the people I've talked to have lived through the mess of the previous board in one way or another. I guess it's who you talk to!
I guess I am talking to the
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 11:13 — woodstockI guess I am talking to the same people you are. Nearly to a person, they are thrilled with the new board majority.
Unless someone is tied to Enloe, the NAACP, the N&O or the 4 people that make up the BiggerPicture, there is pretty much a consensus that the new BoE majority is heading in the right direction.
Diddo to that! The only
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 09:51 — shearertwDiddo to that!
The only real, substantial changes this board has done is to INCREASE parental choice. That's it. Therefore, the only people who can reasonably be annoyed at this point are people who are against parents having a choice.
To those of you claiming to be annoyed with the way they're going about things, get your head out of the sand. Several of the minority board members are trying to sabatage, delay, hinder, stop, discredit, lie, cheat, steal and anything else to prevent these changes from being implemented. You folks act like these are cooperative people (the Four Frauds). They are not. They weren't before the election and they're not cooperative now. I have no doubt the new majority would be glad to work with the minority and accept their input and suggestions into the new direction but at the moment, their only input is NO. Then they follow up NO with emails of "bring your pitch forks and make a lot of noise and outrage at anything the new majority tries to accomplish." I'm not fooled and the majority of Wake Co. citizens are not fooled either. The one's I talk to are very up beat and positive about the new direction and have hope that they may now not have to move our of Wake Co. or find the money for private school. I'm not quite that optimistic yet. Hopeful, but not optimistic.
no community members on task force
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 08:38 — stepbystepI just wrote board members to inquire about the process for applying to join the Economically Disadvantaged Student Performance task force and was told that "community members will not be part of the committee, although we will seek community input." Keung, do you know how that decision was made? When I think "task force" I think of a variety of perspectives and experts focused on examining an issue thoroughly.
John Tedesco is the chairman
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 09:31 — KeungHui (author)John Tedesco is the chairman of the task force and said he's going to contact people from the public about joining the group.
Is John the only sane member
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 09:59 — user12345Is John the only sane member with a broad, inclusive plan involving ALL parties?
The problem
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 20:30 — NCParentThe problem with "turnabout is fair play" is that the next stage is usually "payback's a biyotch" from the other side. And that seems to be what's going on here, unfortunately. I was completely disgusted with the previous board's outright refusal to listen to any parent about anything, but this board is starting to annoy me as well, even if I agree with what they are trying to do. What's wrong with at least an attempt at building consensus and letting the other side feel heard? I am seriously afraid for the backlash that I think could be coming down the pike. I think it's going to hurt our chances in the long run of getting things back on track -- and I don't mean the year-round kind of track! Yes, they were elected, but it's not like they have a huge mandate. I mean, we're talking about a couple thousand votes in a county of almost a million.
Agreed
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 22:16 — pmI was completely disgusted with the previous board's outright refusal
to listen to any parent about anything, but this board is starting to
annoy me as well, even if I agree with what they are trying to do.
What's wrong with at least an attempt at building consensus and letting
the other side feel heard?
The folks who felt that the previous board "didn't listen" and then blindly support this board really are just saying "they didn't listen TO ME. By allowing this type of behavior, their true colors are showing and only demonstrate that their words of "not fair" did not ring true.
Then again, the silence from that group on this blog is interesting. All of a sudden, so many regulars are no longer posting.
...
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 22:38 — SideburnsCan either of you elaborate on what exactly this board has done that is annoying? I know they have included some last minute agenda items but, honestly, what action have they taken that is so distressing to you? Honest question.
You hit it
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 22:44 — NCParentIt's really the last minute agenda items that's doing it for me. It seems, well, sneaky. We all got whiplash from the last board's presto-change-os (hello, LRMS anyone) but I don't believe the way to go about this is to give it right back the same way. Like I said, I am on board with their stated goals but the way they go about it DOES matter. My kids are in private schools, but at church and activities we are around many who've got kids in public school. And I am hearing a lot more people talking about WCPSS than I ever have, and the voices are not happy.
Unhappy magnet parents
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 11:19 — NWRaleighMomAnd I am hearing a lot more people talking about WCPSS than I ever have, and the voices are not happy.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magnet parents, by chance? They are not the majority but VERY vocal. I hear them too... But the rest of the parents is firmly behind the new Board.
Huh?
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 12:07 — supportwcpssUnless you have spoken to every parent (and non-parent) for that matter how can you possibly know who the majority and minority are? My guess is that it is probably a 50/50 proposition but I don't pretend to know.
?
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 16:16 — Bob_SconceMagnet parents are clearly a minority of the parents in the district.
Nice comment
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 16:13 — Duhhuh666Yes. The put him in charge of "Policy" where they had no desire to change anything. That's like putting someone in charge of autopilot
Thanks for the laugh...great statement
Why would anyone appoint
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 14:26 — jenmanWhy would anyone appoint someone as chair of a committee that was clearly closed minded to the changes you believe need to be made?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with support that the committee assignments seem very lopsided, but shearer's statement above is absolutely the truth. There are some key committees that I would definitely not put any of the 'status-quo- members in charge of.
Keung--how did committees look in previous years? Did each board member have at least one committee that they were chair of? Was anybody chair of several?
There used to be only five
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 14:43 — KeungHui (author)There used to be only five committes, the four standing ones and the ad-hoc policy committee so no one chaired more than one. The standing commitees used to have four members on them so every member (excluding the chair) served on two.
Keung, Just wondering. What
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 14:00 — shearertwKeung,
Just wondering. What committees did Ron chair under the reign of the former BOE?
Support,
Why would anyone appoint someone as chair of a committee that was clearly closed minded to the changes you believe need to be made? The Four Frauds have clearly established themselves as being against the changes persued by the Fabulous Five and the people who elected them. When the Final Four see the light, then they'll be included in the positive direction of the new WCPSS.
Margiotta was chair of
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 14:13 — KeungHui (author)Margiotta was chair of policy.
wow ... so the status quo
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 15:43 — user12345wow ... so the status quo put Ron in charge of something? hmmm... does that make Ron part of the status quo?
Yes. The put him in charge
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 16:02 — shearertwYes. The put him in charge of "Policy" where they had no desire to change anything. That's like putting someone in charge of autopilot.
Ron was in charge of policy
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 16:17 — user12345Ron was in charge of policy committee and was part of diversity policy and now has put Debra in charge to dismantle diversity?
" For instance Debra Goldman will chair the policy committee that will review the proposed changes to the diversity policy. "
User, I don't think you
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 17:28 — shearertwUser,
I don't think you get it (per usual). The diversity policy was already in place when Ron was named chair of the Policy committee. If by chance he was able to get a "policy" change out the committee, he'd then have to get approval by the full board. In other words, he was completely powerless to actually do anything to change the existing policy.
" If by chance he was able
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 17:40 — user12345" If by chance he was able to get a "policy" change out the committee, he'd then have to get approval by the full board. "
How many times did he fail trying to make changes? How many times did the BOE vote his proposed changed down? Oh, he did not make any proposal? Rolled over and played dead? Worthless.
I have to disagree witht his post
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 11:27 — stacy123I was at several board meetings and watched many more. I witnessed many motions Ron made that were voted down 6-1. I think based on his numerous futile effort, he never stopped making motions to change when he was in the minority. So disagree and criticize anything about Ron but this is 1 area where he should be applauded (for his own stubbornness refusal to roll-over. He did not roll-over and continued trying all trhoughout.
Hmm..
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 12:12 — supportwcpssAgain, calling BS on this. Name one concrete proposal with data and a plan to back it up that Ron put on the table during his tenure.
One? Takers?
Really, it is going to be a
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 13:51 — CaryCurmudgeonReally, it is going to be a long four years for you if you let yourself get upset over every little thing this board does (still think you need a margarita).
Ron proposed a study to determine the effectiveness of the diversity policy. The rest of the board said no. In dismissing the need for a study, the board made it very clear that data was not driving their decisions.
What do you hope to
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 13:38 — woodstockWhat do you hope to accomplish with this silly little quiz?
You can dream up anything you want to about what Margiotta used do to and it won't change one damn thing about what is going to happen moving forward.
I think it accomplished what
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 15:54 — carson79I think it accomplished what was intended - to point out that you or someone else made a statement that when asked, could not back up. Mission accomplished.
Go to the videotapes
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 12:53 — stacy123go to the video tapes of the meetings for any specifics as I do not recall the specifics, just Ron bringing up an action for a vote and being outvoted 6-1.
Still waiting for....
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 15:06 — supportwcpssspecific examples...anyone?
http://blogs.newsobserver.com
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 16:13 — Eric_Bhttp://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/defending-the-diversity-study-vote
FYI: Nobody looks good
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 18:18 — woodstockFYI: Nobody looks good eating sour grapes.
Let me help you out here
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 17:52 — shearertwLet me help you out here user. You seem confused.
If you're in the board majority and want something changed, then you need people on your side of the "change" as committee chair to get the "change" on the agenda and drive toward a decision and out of the committee. Then, once out of committee, your board majority can approve it. If you think you don't need any changes made in a specific area such as "policy", then it doesn't matter who you put as the chair. They can put it on the agenda and one of two things can happen 1) it never gets out of committee because the committee is stacked with status-quo or 2) it makes it out and is then easily squashed by the majority. This isn't rocket science here, why are you having so much trouble following along? If you know what happened in Ron's committee I suggest you tell us all and then tell us how you know.
I don't have any idea as to
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 17:46 — shearertwI don't have any idea as to the answers to your questions and I suspect nor do you. I do recall Ron stepping up and making proposals against the majority BOE's policies on several occassions only to be shut down. The chairman of a committee generally just sets the agenda and drives the discuss. I don't believe they have undo influence the outcome and decisions made. Did you sit in on those committee meetings or are you just blowing smoke?
Gang of Five has spoken
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 13:28 — supportwcpssAnd they have no interest in engaging in discourse with anyone else on the Board. They continue to be disrespectful of the other four.
Turnabout...
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 14:15 — Bob_SconceIs fair play. After decades of cramming its policies down the throats of its opponents, those now in the minority can't fairly claim that they're being treated "disrespectfully." Those now in the minority have been "disrespectful" (in your words) since 1976 when the Raleigh/WC merger was pushed through after a referendum showing that voters didn't want it.
School board politics has always been hardball. Nobody should be surprised when the new majority starts playing that way as well.
(Don't get me wrong -- I'm not endorsing that state of affairs, just pointing out its existence.)
Were you living here in 1976
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 17:16 — carson79Were you living here in 1976 during the merger?
I am wondering how many on the blog were and remember what it was like..
No..
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 17:30 — Bob_SconceI was not. But, does it matter? You can like a result but not like the process that was used to achieve that result. (I imagine many people in favor of "health care reform" are cringing at all the tactics being pulled by the House and Senate leaders to get it passed.)
Or, are you asserting that the ends justifies the means?
Were you here in 1976? What was it like?
I wasn't old enough to
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 17:49 — carson79I wasn't old enough to understand. I was just wondering why it was opposed so strongly (like 3 to 1 right?) and yet I have never met anyone who says they voted against merger... interesting!
Here's my understanding
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 20:19 — TrailerParkGirlHere's my understanding from what I've read (didn't live here then).
There were concerns on both sides:
Back then, Raleigh had the larger tax base and population. Raleigh residents were concerned that merger would mean a reallocation of their higher tax base to the lower tax base county areas. The folks in the county were concerned that due to their lower population base, they would not have fair representation on the BOE and the BOE would set policies that favored the schools in the system that were located in Raleigh.
On the motivation to do it side for Raleigh was concern about possible "white flight" and on the motivation to do it side for the county folks was the reallocation of Raleigh's higher tax base to be used in the county areas.
30+ years later, there are ITB/OTB equity concerns on both sides on various issues. ITBers are concerned that their schools are older and resources were allocated to build new OTB schools. OTBers are concerned that the BOE policies favor ITB like magnet resources are disproportionately ITB and that all the MYR pain was OTB (no ITB schools are MYR/were converted).
What would we do without a
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 09:57 — user12345What would we do without a beltline to divide us up into groups? Maybe the outer beltline will create a third tier of citizens and we can have a three way fight.
Thanks for the breakdown!
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 09:39 — carson79Thanks for the breakdown! I think the only thing I would note is that it wasn't "possible" white flight - it was IN FACT white flight! This was something people talked about back then!
I think a lot of people that want to keep some sort of diversity as a priority in school assignment in some way have heard people make off-the-wall race-related comments (for ex. I heard a Wakefield High graduate say that the SE Raleigh kids should have to take an "entrance exam" to get into "his" high school) it disgusts us and in absence of any other remedy (maybe we lack imagination) we try to hold some few inches of ground on an issue that the rest of the country and in particular the SOUTH have let slip away...
"...it disgusts us and in
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 10:05 — shearertw"...it disgusts us and in absence of any other remedy (maybe we lack imagination) we try to hold some few inches of ground..."
BINGO carson79,
You have hit a homerun with that statement. I absolutley believe this is the exact reason people are clinging to the diversity policy. Its a symbol that somebody is thinking about their well being. Unfortunately, that couldn't be further from the truth. The former administration was not interested in the well being of ED students. They were interested in accolades for themselves. It has been clear for a very long time now that the diversity policy was having zero impact on improving the performance of ED students. They ignored that data and tried to change the message from "helping ED students close the gap" to "creating healthy schools". I'm sorry but the former BOE duped the ED and minority population with this one for years and they should all be outraged about that. Instead, you have leaders in the NAACP still trying to fool the people they claim to support. Further outrage necessary.
I realize this community does not trust the intentions of supposedly rich, white people and perhaps for good reason. But its not 1960 anymore. Most of us attended fully integrated schools for our entire lives. Its time to stop clinging to policies that aren't working just because they claim to be advancing your cause. What the NAACP should be doing is coming up with NEW strategies and advancing NEW ideas to address the issues in their communities. Instead they insist on screaming racism, re-segregation and doing nothing more than grandstanding for their own personal benefit. Those are the people you can't trust.
well
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 10:21 — supportwcpssshear - how far do you think we are from 1960? Do you honestly think we have made so many leaps and bounds that the issues in 1960 are irrelevant to today's society? If so I would say you are ingnorant to others that aren't you.
You claim you attended fully integrated schools. Were they truly integrated or just in name only. Didn't groups of people still congregate and doesn't that still happen. One just has to look at the current achievement gap to realize there are still issues.
To sweep it under the rug and tell people they need to get with the new times is just rude, insensitive, and ignorant.
We have absolutely made
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 11:02 — shearertwWe have absolutely made leaps and bounds from 1960. Anyone who cannot see that is ignorant.
Of course we have issues today, some may even be the same. What has the diveristy policy done to change that?
FYI. People will always congregate in groups. People congregate in groups for a variety of reasons, not just color. I had friends of all colors from ES through college. Played sports with them, shared a ride, sat next to all types in class. Don't pretend to know people you don't.
I'm telling people to wake up and see for themselves that their community leadership has duped them. Call that rude and insensitive if you like. What do you call the people who have lied to you for years claiming to be helping your cause only to be helping themselves?
One
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 12:05 — supportwcpssIndividual's view of the world is so narrowly focused. You and I have a difference of opinion on how much 'progress' has been made.
I don't think I reference the diversity policy in my post but if you want to use that as your crutch for every argument go ahead.
I have no clue what you are talking about in your last paragraph.