The school board election results will be discussed on this Sunday's edition of NC Spin.
The first topic on Sunday's television show is "Wake's wake-up election." The discussion from the usual panelists, such as Chris Fitzsimon and John Hood, should make for some different perspectives on the election.
Tom Campbell, the host of NC Spin, ventured into the issue with a column in Sunday's Charlotte Observer in which he wondered if the election results "was the beginning of a voter revolution in our state or simply the repudiation of current school policies and leaders?"
"When public officials aren't responsive, act arrogantly or don't convince citizens of the rightness of their positions, the people withdraw their consent through their votes, and that was exactly what happened Tuesday," Campbell writes.
Comments
Tin Ear Might Have Tipped the Scales
Sun, 10/18/2009 - 09:58 — BWNelsonMy husband voted for "change", but what pushed him over the edge was the feeling that Wake BOE seemed to have grown complacent with its power and developed a tin ear to a large part of the people it served. The three big examples I can think of are first, that the board went to great lengths to get a court order saying it could force students into year round schools. The second was the whole debacle about making kids go to school on Memorial Day. Third, the Wednesday schedule change was proposed and implemented so quickly that some parents no doubt had to scramble to cover their child care obligations.
I voted against "change". I noticed that all the "change" candidates were endorsed by the Republican party, which sent out a letter to registered Republicans a day or two before the election. The letter also encouraged people to vote for the pro-development candidate in Cary. I will be watching the board with interest to see how many good educational projects fall to the chopping block in order to "save the taxpayer" money. Also, if the students return to their bases, I will be watching to see whether there is any improvement in the educational options at their base schools.
One thing my husband and I agree on is that its not about paying taxes as much as its about the quality of services received for the taxes that are paid, and that public servants should serve the public. Maybe that should be the take-away lesson for the board in regards to this election.
Hmm..
Sun, 10/18/2009 - 11:33 — Bob_SconceSo, for you, an endorsement by the Republican Party is a bad thing? For many, an endorsement by the Democrat Party is a bad thing. Isn't that a silly reason to decide who to vote for?
This is an amazing election because of WSCA's ability to attract people from both parties to find candidates and work to get them elected. This wasn't the party leaders deciding in some smoke-filled backroom. How often do you get a truly grassroots effort like that?
The story of this election isn't about Democrats versus Republicans -- if anything, both parties struggled for relevancy in the election. Instead, it's a story about individuals who were fed up with how the school district was run and did something about it.
Yes, that would be correct.....
Sun, 10/18/2009 - 20:10 — BWNelsonAn endorsement by the republican party would be a bad thing, a black mark in my book. Look, the reps have really done a stellar job of things nationally, haven't they? They come in on the wings of some lofty family centered idea and the first they cater to is corporations and truly rich individuals. So yeah, an endorsement by the Rep party is not just a bad thing, it is nearly fatal for my own vote.
So when a group of candidates came in with a mantra of "community schools" and they just happen to be endorsed by the Republican party, along with a big time development supporter for a City Council seat, yeah, call me skeptical. Not only that, how much money was spent on this? I had at least three calls that sounded a lot like push polls from the Rep-backed candidates. Hasn't Ray Margiotta already suggested in a board meeting that magnet schools be eliminated for cost reasons? Isn't he also a Republican?
This post sounds more contrary than I intend it to be. I am open to these new board members to change my mind. Pigs could also fly. I think, however, it would be a mistake to take this election as a mandate to disable or defund schools. Many of us voters, Democrats and Republicans alike, feel that high quality services for our tax money is better than poor quality services and a slight or no reduction in taxes. The board should remember it is there to "serve", and not to "dismantle".
Well...
Sun, 10/18/2009 - 23:22 — Bob_SconceSometimes a certain amount of dismantling is necessary to serve. Gotta break a few eggs.
I'm not going to get into national parties messing things up--there's more than enough blame to go around on that one. In my book, "Congressman" is one step below "Earthworm," and that applies to members of both parties. Even so, I suggest that it appears your view of the Republican party has been colored by those who demonizing groups (corporations and "rich people") for political gain. I hope you never end up as the target on some politican's "bad-guys" list.
Who the heck is talking about "defunding" schools? The most I heard was a question coming (I think) from WRAL asking if we needed to raise school taxes.
I'm willing to have my taxes raised if it will actually improve education and not go to hiring another administrator or be thrown into the latest ivory tower education experiment. Frankly, I trust the board newcomers to be straight about whether they need more money -- the old ones were all too happy to oblige the administration's empire-building, and thus couldn't be trusted.
Some people have already
Sun, 10/18/2009 - 12:11 — CaryCurmudgeonSome people have already forgotten that the Republicans endorsed Gerry Ballan in District 7. I heard that before the election was over, Gerry had a Karen Simon sign in his front yard.
BWNelson,
I can assure you that there are many who supported the Republican candidate for School Board in Cary who do NOT support the Republican candidate for District A.
That is awful hypocritical
Sat, 10/17/2009 - 10:23 — its4mykidsThat is awful hypocritical of you Rev. You don't want your "choice" taken away, but it was perfectly fine for those that had to go to a MYR school or those who did not get into a magnet school. Did you fight for them when their choices were being taken away? You who point fingers at the neighborhood school advocates stating they are selfishly fighting for their families when you seem to be only concerned about your potential "lack of choice". Your "moral obligation" argument has lost all credibility.
"Was Wake school election the shot heard 'round the state?"
Fri, 10/16/2009 - 16:36 — petehs"More than the economy is prompting high levels of distrust in this state."
A dear friend reminds me repeatedly that Democracy is a messy business. A revolution? Great idea...
As long as the revolution
Fri, 10/16/2009 - 20:58 — RevHiDAs long as the revolution doesn't ruin what's good.
ie:
Fri, 10/16/2009 - 23:18 — SDR256As in throw the baby out with the bath water, like this? Yeah, I'd say we'd want to avoid blind ideology.
http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/1003/article/1041
Yes! The school that I love
Sat, 10/17/2009 - 00:49 — RevHiDYes!
The school that I love is a community that extends beyond the boundaries of neighborhood and socio-economic status. We participate by choice. Taking that choice away, calling it failure, or "socio-economic engineering" and deciding that neighborhood schools are the one-size-fits-all miracle cure for our ills will be just as wrong.
My Dad was right, you can't legislate love. But we have a moral obligation to develop equitable (not separate-but-equal) educational access for all children, regardless of their parent's ability to afford housing.
Agree!
Sat, 10/17/2009 - 11:24 — SDR256Agree, agree, agree! It sadly seems that you believe everything the N&O editorial staff has tried to spoonfeed the public about WSCA and these new candidates. The idea that WSCA has tried to communicate all along is one of a kind of community model which adopts the attractive characteristics of neighborhood schools - proximity to home, stability for students and community connections, parent involvement - WITHOUT making this a one trick pony like we've lived with for 10 years. Let's breathe some life into this old beast! Its not working!
Door #1 is Diversity Busing, Door #2 is forced neighborhood schools ala CMS. WE WANT DOOR #3!! There are lots of good models out there, and many systems that are working to figure this out in parallel. Its such an extreme to point fingers and claim - as some have, not necessarily you - that suburban folks just want to shut the gates on their communities and don't want any of those little poor kids creeping in anymore. That kind of story sells newspapers, and you're absolutely right - it is not loving or helpful. Most importantly, its not true!
How about LOTS of choice? For example, how about giving SE Raleigh and other struggling neighborhoods a REAL choice? How about a community cluster model choice, such as - go to school at a very successful school such as the Wilmington school on the link (with a KIPP program?), or a few magnets, OR, if you really think that sitting your kid next to a bunch of suburban kids is what motivates him/her, give some kind of 'swap' option. That way, if the trade off of having your kid 20 miles from home comes with the right benefits that's your CHOICE.
Lots and lots of choice. I don't know how much they can manage, but I expect that's what we'd all like.