Wake County school board member Debra Goldman is defending Superintendent Tony Tata and accusing board members Susan Evans and Christine Kushner of having violated their oaths.
In an interview Tuesday on the Bill LuMaye Show on WPTF, Goldman tell the conservative talk show host that Tata was "completely correct here" in emailing Evans and Kushner because "they've refused to disaffiliate from special-interest groups," namely the the Great Schools in Wake Coalition.
Goldman points to Evans and Kushner accepting the award last month for GSIW and attending the recent GSIW student assignment forum to dispute their statements that they're not involved with the group. She said it's "highly inappropriate to be out there championing a fringe group like this."
"I've seen candidates with t-shirts that thank Great Schools in Wake along with others," Goldman said. "So when we're talking about them saying they're no longer affiliated, to me it's like a wink, wink, nod, nod kind of a thing because they are. They're coming out, they're speaking out on behalf of this group. This group continues to back them. There is a strong allegiance."
Goldman said she feels Evans and Kushner's involvement with GSIW has been "a violation of this oath," referring to the school board's code of ethics. The code says board members should "render all decisions based on the available facts and independent judgment and refuse to surrender that judgment to individuals or special interest groups."
Goldman has ended her previous refusal to talk with the media now that she's running for state auditor.
Comments
So is there any credibility to this?
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 16:50 — cj91ncSomeone forwarded me an article from the Beaufort Observer that accused Goldman (and others) of some pretty bad stuff. The title of the article was "Misunderstanding? Misstatement? or Worse?" from Feb. 22.
Unless they edited the
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 17:35 — jenmanUnless they edited the article, all it accuses Goldman of is claiming that she won the GOP straw poll in Meck Cty. I don't see any other people mention nor any other accusations. Am I missing something?
It's not so much the article
Tue, 03/06/2012 - 20:38 — cj91ncIt's the comments that seem to have all the dirt. Essentially, it looks like accusations are being thrown around from all quarters that Goldman and Malone may have engaged in some inappropriate behavior...
Somebody sent me a link to the story or I would never have known about it. In reading the comments, it just goes off the charts talking about some affair-type activity that they suppose everyone in Wake Co. knows. I haven't even seen a hint of anything like that in the N&O. Is anyone in the know?
Goldman Goofs...
Sat, 02/25/2012 - 13:19 — RUContento2Now when will Deborah Goldman appologize??? Obviously, she was as guilty of throwing gasoline on the fire as Tata!!!
Just shut up, Debra
Thu, 02/23/2012 - 13:25 — tartexanEverything you say now is greared towards you getting any kind of publicity in your goal to become state auditor. I promise you I will be state auditor before you are and I am not even running.
Like any good politician...
Thu, 02/23/2012 - 08:27 — bpuli9999Debra is using anything she can to get the limelight and therefore, money for her campaign. All of a sudden she becomes the watchdog, the person who singlehandedly drove major change in the entire school system, and now the ethics expert!
I guess it is okay for BoE members to accept salaried jobs with donors. I see no ethical violations there.
what is a special interest group?
Thu, 02/23/2012 - 01:41 — gercohenI don't get it. The school board members oaths of office do not say anything about special interest groups, so members have not violated their oaths. In any case, I do not think Great Schools in Wake County, the Chamber of Commerce, the Democratic or Republican parties, the Tea Party, or the Wake County Taxpayers Association are "special interest groups" They are all GENERAL interest groups. examples of "special" interest groups would be vendors, backers of a particular school or athletic booster clubs, persons trying to sell land to the school system, or teachers organization.
Still trying to build a
Wed, 02/22/2012 - 22:15 — ruthlissStill trying to build a resume, watchdog?
...
Wed, 02/22/2012 - 19:11 — SideburnsUh, Wake County citizens elected these nitwits. We all knew who would actually be in charge once the GSIW candidates were elected. I'm just glad to see Tata call them out. Strangehold is the perfect word.
Open Mouth
Sat, 02/25/2012 - 00:05 — jgegbgmgWell Sideburns you can now insert your foot into that big mouth of yours - Your man TATA has apologized for "calling them out" and admitted that he was wrong in doing so - YOU can now see why the citizens of Wake County elected these outstanding ladies to serve in the "majority" on our board - Next time make sure you know the facts before making a fool of yourself - Tough luck LOSER !!!!!
...
Sat, 02/25/2012 - 10:14 — SideburnsI'm not sure why you think I came out the loser in all of this. Sure, Tata apologized -- because that's the sort of leader he is. I still contend that he was right in calling them out. Those outstanding ladies had the audacity to accept an award on behalf of a group that is calling our Supt and his staff liars -- and actively working to undermine the student assignment plan.
I still wonder if Tata saw and heard something at the GSIW/NAACP forum a few weeks ago. (You know, the one where Tata was told to be quiet and listen to GSIW spew their rhetoric even after he was invited to attend.) I understand Evans was huddling with Brannon and crew having all sorts of interesting discussions. They really should make sure there aren't prying ears around.
Funny, you sure didn't have
Sat, 02/25/2012 - 12:43 — virginiadareFunny, you sure didn't have a problem with it at all when you as well as other groups and individuals, including board members, called the previous superintendent and his staff liars and actively worked to undermine the student assignment plan, going so far as to sue the system.
...
Sat, 02/25/2012 - 15:34 — SideburnsUh, I'm not a Board member. I wasn't elected to represent the Wake County Public School System. Evans and Kushner have certain responsibilities as elected officials. And I don't think continuing an intimate involvement with a group that is calling names and telling lies about our Supt and his staff is appropriate.
Like Margiotta did with
Sat, 02/25/2012 - 17:26 — virginiadareLike Margiotta did with WakeCares and WSCA and the Wake County Taxpayers Association? I also remember Tedesco in particular telling lies about the system, along with WSCA, who he was aligned with, including but not limited to the one about 1500 teachers being laid off. The previous majority was obviously taking the advice of John Hood with the Locke Foundation to "treat the staff as enemy." The AdvancEd report pointed to how those board members spread misinformation that was not based on facts and undermined the authority of the superintendent, who never addressed them so disrespectfully, despite the way he and his staff were treated by them. He respected their positions as elected officials, and out of that respect resigned so that they could hire someone more to their liking. And I don't believe that GSIW has been telling factual lies, but have been asking questions and voicing concerns, which is appropriate. They are not "calling names." Their "attacks" are nothing compared to what the previous administration endured. The new board members have as much right to maintain ties with GSIW as the previous majority had to maintain ties with the groups they were aligned with who were hostile to the school system.
Two wrongs don't make a
Sat, 02/25/2012 - 22:57 — jeffrey1Two wrongs don't make a right.
When discussing what organizations board members can align with, I think it makes sense to consider the objectives of the organization. If the organization exist purely to promote or challenge the schools system, then board members should stay away. This means that Margiotta should not have aligned himself with WCSA, but I think it's perfectly fine for him to be a member of the Wake County Taxpayers Association, as their organization exists to promote and challenge issues of taxation. Despite what you may think, WCTA is no more hostile to the school system, then they are to the Sheriff's Department or the public libraries (recipients of taxpayer funding). In the same way, associating with the Tea Party (or any political party) should be fair game, as they do not exist for the sole purpose of promoting or challenging the school system.
In the case of Evans and Kushner, GSIW exists for the sole purpose of promoting/challenging the school system, and is clearly challenging the system, board members, the Chamber of Commerce, AdvancEd, etc, and neither Evans and Kushner should associate with that group. Accepting an award, GIVEN TO GSIW, clearly sent a signal that they were aligned with that group, whether or not they intended to send that signal.
Will you agree that Margiotta was wrong to be associated with WCSA, just as Evans and Kushner are wrong to have ever had any association with GSIW while members of the board? Remember, you are the one that said that we need board members and the community to compromise on issues, if we are ever going to go forward. So let's put that to the test. Will you compromise and agree that Margiotta, Evans, and Kushner made an error in judgement when associating with these groups?
Actually, I was not the one
Sun, 02/26/2012 - 07:47 — virginiadareActually, I was not the one who said we need board members and the community to compromise on issues if we are to go forward. I believe board members should make their decisions based on their knowledge of the system and what they think will be best for the system as a whole, and should educate the community as to why. My point above was that it was grossly inappropriate for the superintendent to accuse Evans and Kushner of ethics violations because he believed they were associating with a group which had been critical of him. First, they had not been active with the group since being sworn in, and had accepted the award for past work, which was appropriate. They have stated that they respect the boundary necessary between board member and advocacy group. Second, they have not voted the way GSIW would have wanted them to nor have they advocated for any of GSIW positions since they have been in office, so obviously they are thinking independently and are not being held in a stranglehold by the group as Tata had accused them. Instead, they have gone out of their way to show support for the superintendent and not interfere with the implementation of his plan, though they had reservations about it, which is at odds with what GSIW wanted them to do. Margiotta, to the contrary, worked actively with WakeCARES while he was a board member to actually sue the system! The superintendent never called him out publicly for that, though it was obviously a breach of ethics and fiduciary duty to the system. It also seems obvious that Margiotta was much more active with WSCA while a sitting board member than Kushner and Evans have been with GSIW. Didn't he help vet and have final approval of the candidates they endorsed? All of the previous board majority, once elected, voted according to the positions of WSCA and its affiliates, and were openly critical of the superintendent and his staff. I don't see the situations as similar, nor do I think Kushner and Evans did anything wrong. I think Tata was way out of bounds. He doesn't seem to know the difference between an executive board and a supervisory board, nor does he understand school board ethics or the appropriate relationship between elected officials and the administrator they hire to carry out their policies.
The issue is not that GSIW
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 11:19 — jenmanThe issue is not that GSIW is critical of Tata. They can be as critical as they want. Kushner & Evans can too. The problem is that Kushner & Evans haven't been critical of him. I'm sure that they have asked plenty of tough questions (as they should) and have expresssed concerns about the assignment plan (again, as they should). But they have not come out and said that Tata has lost the trust of the public nor have I heard them say that they think Tata & his staff are lying about the nature of the new transportation plan.
When they accepted an award on behalf of GSIW, they identified themselves as important members or leaders of this group. (Whether or not they meant to do so is besides the point.) That would indicate that they agree with GSIW's positions. Tata and the board talked about the importance of communication at their board retreat. So if E &K had not communicated these concerns to Tata and then a group that they are (presumably) leaders of makes these accusations, can you not understand why Tata would ask them about their involvement?
FTR, my opinion is that Tata was not wrong to ask about their involvement. They overreacted and then Tata really overreacted by accusing them of ethical violations. I am glad that Tata apologized for that. I hope that Kushner & Evans recognize why accepting the award for GSIW was a bad move.
The difference between this situation and WSCA is that while WSCA was definitely critical of the admin, so were the board members we endorsed. Both before and after the election. JT was very vocal through his work on the ED Task Force that he felt the math placement issue was not being handled correctly and that accurate data was not being given. There were no surprises in the board members or WSCA's criticism of WCPSS. MYR, magnet lottery, busing, EVAAS, etc.
If Kushner and Evans think that Tata is losing the public's trust or lied about the transportation plan then they need to say so publicly. If they don't believe that, then they should not publicly link themselves with GSIW. I don't have a problem if any of the board members are critical of Tata or staff. I just want them to be upfront about it and not use an outside interest group to make the criticism for them. (I'm not accusing them of doing this. I don't believe that they intended to do so. Just stating what I expect from all board members.)
First off, ever hear of
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 01:51 — jeffrey1First off, ever hear of paragraph breaks?
First, they had not been active with the group since being sworn in, and had accepted the award for past work, which was appropriate.
The award WAS NOT given to Evans and Kushner. It was given to GSIW (ironically from it's parent organization, WakeUp Wake County). You do not send "former" members of an organization to accept an award given to that organization.
Margiotta, to the contrary, worked actively with WakeCARES while he was a board member to actually sue the system!
There is no evidence that Margiotta was involved in the lawsuit. Was he in favor of it? Yes. But his official position as a voting member of the board was that schools should not be mandated to be year round. Remember that the majority of the schools forcefully converted to YR were in Margiotta's district. Of course he had a position on the matter. That is his job! The fact that WakeCares had the same position, and introduced a law suit does not prove that Margiotta was involved in the lawsuit.
It also seems obvious that Margiotta was much more active with WSCA while a sitting board member than Kushner and Evans have been with GSIW. Didn't he help vet and have final approval of the candidates they endorsed?
When many board members (on both sides) contribute to the campaigns of others running for the board, I don't see Margiotta's involvement in helping to decide who to endorse. You don't think Obama's opinion helps some democratic organizations decide who to run as a candidate?
Yes, I do think Obama's
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 07:53 — virginiadareYes, I do think Obama's opinion helps some democratic organizations decide who to run as a candidate. And I did read (not that I believe everything I read, which is why I phrased it as a question) that Margiotta had final approval and helped vet.
But again, my point was that what Tata did was inapprpriate and the disrespect he showed to board members is something that no superintendent in our district has ever done before, despite how the board member may have behaved. Evidently that fact was pointed out to him in his meeting with the attorney, Hill, Kushner, and Evans, since he did apologize and sign a statement that no ethical rules or principles had been violated by the board members. He is the one who escalated the drama unnecessarily, and to the detriment of our community.
(Sorry for the lack of paragraphs. As a journalism minor, I know better! Guess I just got carried away.)
How soon we forget...
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 10:59 — shearertw...and the disrespect he showed to board members is something that no superintendent in our district has ever done before
How about when Del Burns let the SAS report sit on his desk for 3 months before being forced to give it to the BOE members?...and when he did, he left out the first two pages that were the most critical? Or...remember the time when he failed to inform the BOE members (except Hill) about the Jim Black land deal (which, by the way, ended up costing WCPSS about $160,000 in lost revenue). Or... how about when he instructed his staff to drag their feet with regard to the YR survey so there was no way for the new BOE to implement any new assignment changes to the 2011-2012 school year.
Yeah, those were the good 'ol days when the superintendent was respectful to all BOE members.
You are repeating
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 12:07 — virginiadareYou are repeating misinformation. None of that is true, and the fact that you are repeating it here is indicative of the danger when board members and groups like WSCA politicize the issues, taking things out of context and often simply making things up -- i.e. lying. As has been stated many times before, people have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. It's important to recognize the difference.
I got my information from
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 12:25 — shearertwI got my information from previous reports from Keung, not WCSA.
1- Burn's did only tell Hill about the deal and Hill and Burns decided it wasn't necessary to tell the rest of the BOE because he (Hill) trusted staff's oversight of the situation. That's based on a Hill statement reported on by Keung and several other sources.
2-Everyone (except you apparently) knows Burns had the SAS report for 3 months before sharing it with the BOE members and only after their repeated request. This has been reported by numerous sources (including Keung).
3-The last statement IS my own opinion following Burn's statements that his staff couldn't get the survey done in time for the re-assignment decisions (statements he made in Dec-ish about getting a survey done and recommendations to the BOE by late Feb/March, which I felt was a rediculous amount of time). I'll give you that the "dragging their feet" one is my opinion (not a lie) but its one I still believe occurred.
Just by saying something
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 12:13 — starsonoursJust by saying something isn't true doesn't make it not true. Please provide proof that this is not true. You also have a right to your opinion and if you are going to say something is not a fact you should prove it isn't.
Or...
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 11:50 — Bob_SconceWhen he surprised the board by announcing his resignation at a public meeting without informing them first? And then when he went on a media binge the next day, even though he knew (or at least should have reasonably known) that the board wouldn't appreciate it? (And then got himself suspended as a result. That shenanigan has significantly impacted his ability to get a full-time replacement position anywhere.)
He (as I've explained many
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 12:33 — virginiadareHe (as I've explained many times before) went to the media because he felt he owed the public an explanation as to why he resigned. In that explanation as well as in later interviews, he stated that he only made the decision right before the meeting. Not that he said, but I believe it was their blatant disrespect that forced him to realize that he would be unable to work with them. Again, his loyalty was to his community, and his actions were based on what he thought they would appreciate, and deserved, not the board. And where in the world do you get the idea that his ability to get a full-time replacement position was impacted? His "shenanigans", as you put it, are indicative of his integrity, which is highly desirable by those wanting to hire a superintendent. Do you know him? Has he told you that, or anyone who might be in the position of hiring a full-time superintendent? I do know him, and I know that he has no desire currently to have a full-time superintendent position because he wants to remain in the community he has served his whole adult life rather than move, and he is focusing on promoting the ideas put forth in his book and on his consulting business with GMK, as well as helping other systems in the state who are in need of an experienced interim. Just another example of people making things up!
So..
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 14:05 — Bob_Sconce(1) I do not know if he's been looking for other jobs. Assuming he's not, I don't know if that's from lack of his interest, or because he recognizes that given how he exited, that would be fruitless. I do know board members in other communities who, when they heard about his exit, asked how he thought he'd ever get another job.
(2) Regardless of when he made his decision, he should not have surprised the board with his decision at the meeting. The right action would have been to wait until after the meeting, tell the board members individually and then have the district make an announcement or have him announce at a later meeting. Doing so was rash.
(3) You're conflating "loyalty to the community" with "loyalty to the board." What happens when Tata starts making decisions based on his personal view of the "community's" desires and not on the board's directions?
Personally, I was glad when Burns left. He had a stranglehold on the pre-'09 board and, as a result, they were not listening to the "community." Instead, they crammed down unnecessary YR conversions, pushed Wacky Wednesdays and supported his busing-for-diversity plan that resulted in Wake's ED students under performing ED students in the state generally. That's why the "community" voted for a dramatic change to the board in '09.
Believe me, Burns did NOT
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 15:30 — virginiadareBelieve me, Burns did NOT have a stranglehold on the pre-09 board. They voted against his advice and recommendations many times, but he was professional enough not to make his frustration public. When Tata believes that the board's directions are going against his personal views of the community's desires (though I don't believe he would have as good a sense of what the community's desires are because of the very short time he has lived here), if he had any integrity at all, he would resign, too.
I don't blame Burns at all for surprising the board like he did after what they had done at that first and subsequent meetings. Though he treated them respectfully by resigning and giving them the opportunity to hire their own superintendent, they did not deserve his respect, as evidenced by the AdvancEd report and threat to take away accreditation because of the board majority's actions at that time.
The people who voted for a dramatic change in '09 were not representative of a majority of the community, as evidenced by the next election, in which 5 districts, rather than 4, voted with a much greater turn-out and proved that the dramatic change brought about was NOT what they wanted.
Uh...
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 16:46 — Bob_SconceYour last paragraph isn't justified. First of all, there was a ton more money spent in '11 than '09, thus boosting turnout -- we don't know what would have happened in '09 had the same sums been spent. (Even so, Kevin Hill barely escaped in '09, despite running against an extremely weak candidate.) Futhermore, you can look at the PPP polling that took place after the '09 election, in which a majority of responses (inlcuding those from the African American community) expressed discontent with the busing-for-diversity policy.
I think the message from both the '09 and '11 elections is that voters want maturity and common sense. We'll see how the current board deals with that.
VD - your continued defense
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 16:34 — jeffrey1VD - your continued defense of Burns, Evans, and Kushner, and all things pre '09 should be a clear sign to you that your views are extreme. Many of us here have admitted that, while the '09 board brought much needed change to WCPSS, they made some mistakes. And that while Tata had legitimate concerns about E/K, he likely should not have gone public.
But you continue to defend anything and everyone associated with diversity based assignment. The mere fact that you think it was OK for Burns to annnounce his resignation without first informing the board is further proof that you are -- what's the word I am looking for -- WHACK!
Holy Smokes, what a bunch of
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 16:06 — shearertwHoly Smokes, what a bunch of garbage!
First, the entire AdvancEd drama was nothing more than a political hit job orchestrated by the nonsensical, racist NAACP....PERIOD. In the end, absolutely NOTHING came of it because AdvancED (experts at manufacturing something out of nothing) could not even make up anything that would not just embarrass themselves more than they already had.
Second, with the exception of Margiotta's seat, the 4 seats the Dems won have almost always gone that way. They're also 4 of the smallest districts with regard to students, and therefore parents, in the school system. Those districts also had the "most" to lose from the Rep BOE with regard to potential changing of the magnet system and no longer being able to bus poor black kids away from their schools and out into the suburbs. The National Democratic machine also dumped 10's to 100's of thousands of $$$ into the election leading to Evans SLIGHTLY edging out Margiotta and Hill (an incombent BOE member and former princapal) SLIGHTLY edging out Losardo (a no name with no educational background at all). Given the amount that Margiotta had been hit with national attacks, his loss wasn't that surprising. The only real surprise was how close the Hill-Losardo race was. That should have been a slam dunk for Hill. I hope you Dems continue to over play your hand based on those results.
You just made it clear you are living in La La Land.
Forgetting some important facts
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 08:23 — SatchHHshear - you're forgetting the important fact that all of the school board districts were reconfigured under the new board (per pre-established timeline) and the Republican majority specifically hired an outside lawyer to draw up the districts to favor them (yet another waste of money). Don't you remember the outcry from Democrats when the new lines were made public and how Jim Martin was conveniently drawn out of Margiotta's district and how other lines were shifted? I know the Republican majority thought they had done all that was needed to put voters against them into Sutton's district and Morrison's district. MacLaurin's and Hill's were shifted so theirs were vulnerable. BUT the smart voters in those districts didn't want any more of the BS that was being fed to them and voted in the new board. Margiotta thought he would win by a landslide. Did you see his abysmal performance at the forum with Susan Evans? I was appalled at his arrogance and ignorance. So - a long-winded way of saying that everything was rigged in favor of the OLD board majority and the new folks and Sutton and Hill still prevailed. Now, if we could just dig out of the mess created by the OLD board.
?
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 09:16 — Bob_SconceHill's district was only shifted in the smallest degree.
As to "wasting money," when redistricting happened in '00 and '90, the board also hired outside counsel to help with it. In fact, they'd be fools not to.
As to outcry from Democrats, they would have whined if a Republican had started handing out gold bars to all comers.
Umm.... That's what you'd
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 08:56 — shearertwUmm....
That's what you'd like to believe. After a decade of growth, the district line had to be readjusted....Period. It wouldn't have matter who was in charge of the BOE, they would have readjusted the district lines. There is always whining and complaining from the opposite political party when lines are redrawn which is why you HAVE to have a lawyer involved to make sure you decisions will stand up to all the crap that going to come your way. That's not a waste of money, that's being prudent.
Clearly, the Republican BOE members could have gone a lot further with their redrawing of the lines but they, unlike Democrats for the past 100 years in this state, decided not to overstep their power and get ridiculous with it.
FYI, they probably did Jim Martin a favor as he would have had no chance in RM's district. Evans was just quiet enough to slip by.
I agree with you that the school system is a mess but that is due to the previous 10 years of Dem control, not 2 years with the former BOE majority. We can think them that the failed diversity busing policy and MYR are history. Those were their only real accomplishments and I believe the majority of the parents in this county are happy with that. If you don't think they are, try bringing them back!
Adding to Jeffrey's
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 17:06 — DrActualFactualAdding to Jeffrey's reasoning above, Cary Mayor Harold Weinbrecht was also on the ballot for re-election which brought out a lot of dems that may well have voted only for dems on the ticket in some of RM's precincts. The money the dems spent on getting people registered to vote and getting the vote out for absentee and early voting paid off for them.
Are you adding to Jeffrey's
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 17:13 — shearertwAre you adding to Jeffrey's or my reasoning? Either way, it's a good point.
Oops, my mistake
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 17:33 — DrActualFactualOops, my mistake Shearetw--it was your comments that I was adding to (my bad).
No problem....I was just
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 17:40 — shearertwNo problem....I was just looking for Jeffrey's "reasoning".
"he stated that he only
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 12:52 — shearertw"he stated that he only made the decision right before the meeting"
What a stupid excuse! I didn't really care when he resigned and was happy to see him go but that's just a dumb-A excuse. If he really "just made the decision", he should have waited until after the meeting or the next day. I don't think anyone of sound mind in that position would make such big decision and then resign a few hours later. If Burn's said that, it's probably a lie (how does that feel).
I wonder how his consulting
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 12:51 — starsonoursI wonder how his consulting business is doing. I am sure he has a long list of customers that what him to provide for them the results he provided at WCPSS <saracasm>
3rd highest grad rate
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 08:28 — SatchHHYou mean results like having 3rd highest grad rate for large districts - last year - behind only Fairfax, VA and Montgomery, MD. Yep, that's terrible <sarcasm> That kind of result only comes after years of effort. The previous board tried to take credit, but we all know that it was the board before them, and before them, and before them that should really be thanked.
You mean results like having
Thu, 03/01/2012 - 02:31 — jeffrey1You mean results like having 3rd highest grad rate for large districts - last year - behind only Fairfax, VA and Montgomery, MD. Yep, that's terrible <sarcasm>
Wow! You mean we beat out New York, Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, and the list goes on. Yep, that's fantastic <sarcasm>
In a post above, you claimed
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 09:06 — shearertwIn a post above, you claimed the system was in a mess due to the previous Rep BOE....now your claiming it's the greatest due to the decades of BOEs prior to the Rep BOE....
Which is it?
By the way, I believe the "relative" good academic performance of WCPSS has NOTHING to do with ANY of the previous BOEs. Wake Co. NC happens to have the one of the highest educated parent populations in the entire US! To think that has NO effect on the performance of WC students is beyond naive and moving in to stupid. Given the educational level of WC parents, it's sad we have to compare ourselves to "large" districts which are predominantly in urban areas like NYC or LA which are generally considered HORRIBLE! Ranking high on these list means nothing.
How about the increase in ED
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 09:01 — starsonoursHow about the increase in ED graduation rates? Oh wait that decreased during his tenure. The whole premise of the diversity program was that it would help ED students. (Funny you give him credit for an increase that occured after he left but don't credit him with a decrease during the time he was in charge)
Let's be fair....it was
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 09:11 — shearertwLet's be fair....it was NEVER about increasing ED performance. It was always about making DT/N Raleigh powers happy by shipping ED students out into the burbs and concentating the magnet resources in those people's neighborhoods. He certainly accomplished that objective.
Everyone knew that was the
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 09:34 — starsonoursEveryone knew that was the reason for the plan but no one stated so in public. It was "sold" as a way to increase ED performance.
Yes it was....That was the
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 09:46 — shearertwYes it was....That was the "masterful" part of the Burns' deception. It's not new, however, as that strategy is generally at the core of ALL liberal policies. Set up a policy that benefits the few elite's (more government power, control, cronyism, etc) and claim you're doing it for the good of the "poor". Whether it's "redistribution" through progressive taxation, "global warming" or "diversity busing" it's always about gaining "control", not helping the poor or saving the whales.
The most shameful part is the actions of the NAACP in this game. They are clearly not interested in the performance of black ED students who have suffered the most under the policy. They only support the policy because it makes them somewhat "relevant". If someone decides to tinker with it, they'll cry "segregation" and "racist". Very sad.
Considering that 99.99% of
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 12:54 — shearertwConsidering that 99.99% of the nation's school systems have rejected his race based assignment strategies, I'd guess his phone ain't ringin' off the hook.
Get your facts right
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 08:26 — SatchHHThe assignment plan was based on SES, not race.
Pulease...what are you
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 08:57 — shearertwPulease...what are you sniffing?
I assume the same thing you were (and are) ...
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 09:03 — bpuli9999when you ran around talking about neighborhood schools not being segregation.