The Wake County school system could become the only school district in the state to not be a member of the N.C. School Boards Association.
At today's committee of the whole meeting, the school board will discuss whether to keep Wake's membership in the NCSBA, the National School Boards Association, NSBA's Council of Urban Boards of Education and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
At issue for members of the new board majority are the membership costs for the groups, particularly for the NCSBA. School board vice chairwoman Debra Goldman said Wake pays more than $40,000 a year combined to be a member of the NCSBA and NSBA.
Leanne Winner, director of governmental relations for the NCSBA, said every school district in the state has been a member since the 1970s. She said one exception was about six years ago when the Winston-Salem/Forsyth school system dropped out for a year before returning.
Winner said Wake wouldn't be able to join the NSBA or CUBE if it leaves the NCSBA.
If the school board opts to leave the NCSBA, it wouldn't be the first time the majority has bucked the group and the state's education establishment.
Wake didn't just reject the NCSBA's request to add requesting taxing authority for local school districts to the district's 2010 legislative agenda. Wake took the opposite stand and added opposing giving taxing authority to local boards to the agenda.
More recently, the superintendent search committee recommended Heidrick & Struggles at $82,500 plus expenses to be the search firm.
The NCSBA had offered to do the superintendent search at $15,000 plus expenses, which has been cited by critics of the new board. But Goldman said the difference between NCSBA and Heidrick is much less when you factor in the NCSBA membership fee.
CUBE, as you recall, gave an award to Wake last year for the district's old diversity policy.
SACS is an accrediting agency. It's been in the news recently because the state NAACP filed a complaint against Wake with SACS. The complaint is still under review.
UPDATE
Clarified to indicate the $40,000 figure would reflect the combined cost of being a member of NCSBA and NSBA. It's $26,415 to join NCSBA and $14,000 to join NSBA.
Staff had planned to renew the memberships because the money is already in the proposed budget. But the board now plans to add to today's agenda a vote on remaining members of those groups. Whether the vote will be to stay or go remains to be seen.
Comments
fiwedding
Wed, 07/21/2010 - 04:24 — fiweddingI'm about to think most "law-yers" are sleezebags......it's that "if you can't beat em, join em" thing, I guess...money's just too darn good apparently, whether it's "good money" or "bad money."
SACS=accredidation
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 13:54 — openmindJust an FYI, SACS does provide acredidation, which does have an impact on students and college.
SACS=accredidation
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 13:54 — openmindJust an FYI, SACS does provide acredidation, which does have an impact on students and college.
Following the Thales model
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 21:10 — Solon77Just following the Thales model - not accredited and no need to hire certified teachers.
The proposal to drop the NCSBA,NSBA and SACS is on the heels of Leubke's article: WCPSS Budget - Finding Savings. In his article he focuses on Membership Dues and Fees. Top expenditures are IB program, NC DPI, NCSBA,NSBA, and SACS.
IB program - he cites high expenditure for supporting relatively few students. Since the board voted to keep Broughton's IB program I guess there is no cutting here.
NCDPI - Prickett works there so I guess that is out. This leaves NCSBA,NSBA and SACS as next on the list. I do not know these organizations and I don;t have any idea as to the value - however it would seem that there should be some discussion with the staff. We are talking $40k out of a $1.2 BILLION budget. From the campaign speeches made a year ago in regards to the alleged waste and mismanagement of funds in the system - it would seem there would be lots of low hanging fruit to go after. So far the BOE has spent some $50k to witch hunt $1m (<.1% of the budget) legal fee expenditure that did not yield any results. Other than that no fiscal action.
Coincidence or not the linkage between the Leubke (Civitas/Pope) and the actions of the BOE.
A question
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 13:51 — MarvinSchwartzIs this an actual fiscal decision, or a veiled attempt to dissociate the school board (and by extension the school system) from anyone who might be opposed to or critical of the policies the junta rams through? Professional, affinity, and accrediting associations often serve a vital role and provides both tangible and intangible benefits.
So can we now expect the junta to say that WCPSS will pull out of all such affiliations that require paid memberships? Will the system pull out of the North Carolina High School Athletic Association? There are 23 high schools, each of which pays dues to be a member. Who needs to play for a state title, right? Just let those 23 schools play each other all the time. Or is this more about the junta throwing yet another tantrum against any who may disagree with them (or in the immortal words of Chris Malone, "they're wrong and we're right").
The cost of membership in both the NCSBA and NSBA is $40K, or $10K less than they paid for the worthless Farr report. Goldman says the cost of membership in the NCSBA factors in to the cost of having the NCSBA coordinate a superintendent search. Fine, factor it in - it is still less than half of what they're paying Heidrick.
Once again, the ruling junta proves they will pay for what advances their agenda and if someone opposes them, the junta will simply throw a fit, take their toys, and go home.
another example of
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 13:22 — jeannie84another example of short-sighted ignorance from this BOE majority
what a waste
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 12:36 — loriacWhat a waste - not only do we pay to be a member, but we spend staff time (real dollars) on preparing entries for the CUBE faux award. In addition, both Hill and Burns travelled to Austin to receive the award.
From the press release, Wake County was 'recognized for progress and leadership' :
'In Wake County, N.C. and Jefferson County, Kentucky, difficult decisions involving race and student assignments warrant recognition. '
So - we pay money to be a member, submit oodles of documentation for a faux award on 'diversity', then get recognized for trying to implement diversity. No results. What a collossal waste of time and effort.
from the Cube website:
Another example of "high
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 12:49 — HJ2ss2Another example of "high profile.....no substance".
I take it your against us
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 12:40 — DrActualFactualI take it your against us "paying to make us look good." I agree, but you know they had to do something to keep up appearances (sarcasm). Real results requires real work and that is much harder.
Much harder and not
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 15:53 — HJ2ss2Much harder and not valued. At the risk of being accused of "airing my dirty laundry", I have this work ethic and integrity problem that I just can't seem to shake (sarcasm). Although I hold myself to a higher standard, I was informed that interventions and programs didn't have to work, just had to make it look like we we're doing something. No matter that it was in violation of my profession's "code of ethics"
I know there's no meat there
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 12:34 — danofncI know there's no meat there that you see, because you'd only see an agenda if someone had it tattooed across their forehead.
I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that a company where a former KIPP executive plays a large role would ultimately think that a certain type of candidate would be a good match for WCPSS.
The district has hired that firm, and at the same time is trying to loosen the requirements (you'll say "expand the candidate pool") for the job. I know you like to draw comparisons to businesses, and state how a businessman should be the choice, but the comparisons always have unexplained differences.
So...
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 13:16 — Bob_SconceIf you look, you'll find that it's a fairly large publicly-traded company that does a lot more than superintendent recruiting, and that the person you're thinking of is in a completely different part of the company's business. Any sufficiently large business will have somebody with some affiliation with a charter or private school in its senior management or board of directors. I suspect that this company also has a gay person somewhere in its senior management or board of directors, but you wouldn't argue that they're going to push gay candidates as a result.
Instead of trying to concoct conspiracy theories, why don't you investigate what that woman had to say and see if she's actually a lone wolf on this, or if this really is a common complaint with this company? I think you'll find that there's scant support for her view.
I don't know that a businessman should be the choice. But, it seems a bit silly to say, in advance, "We shouldn't even consider somebody with the same qualifications as the current head of New York City's schools." [Joel Klein does not have an education degree and was not a superintendent before becoming Chancellor.]
http://reason.com/archives/20
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 13:59 — danofnchttp://reason.com/archives/2006/04/01/the-agony-of-american-educatio
Based on that, it seems like you and the author would have some things in common.
Membership dependent upon
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 12:32 — DrActualFactualMembership dependent upon joining/leaving other associations doesn't pass the stink test--more like you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, etc. Unless Wake is getting a great financial deal from the assn. for some tangible service(like insurance coverage at a very reduced rate) from what has been stated thus far, I'd drop em like a hot potato and use the money elsewhere. Sometimes associations like these are the only ones that will touch school legal liability coverage--depends on your state. A small district might need the assn's advice but larger districts tend to have well educated leadership.
So...
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 13:41 — Bob_SconceThese aren't really independent organizations. It's like the Boy Scouts -- you can't join the BSA without being a member of a local troop.
I think the newcomers to the board should listen to the old-timers (i.e. Margiotta, Hill and McLaurin) on this, as they're the ones who will best know whether the board gets value from these organizations.
This decision could go
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 14:07 — DrActualFactualThis decision could go either way depending on what product/service we actually gain if any from membership in these assns. I've seen Ms. Goldman question line items she's reviewed, the old timers you mentioned seem to rely heavily on staff recommendations, not sure that is best when these associations are many times comprised of previous supts. and staff members of various districts.
$40,000 for What?
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 12:04 — MissVLeadership of the NCSBA wasn't very pragmatic when it sided publicly against the Wake Co School Board: NC's largest school system. $15,000 may sound like a bargain, but not if they only would interview people who think like they do.
There are indications that
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 12:12 — danofncThere are indications that the firm that was hired is only going to consider candidates who share a certain perspective, as well.
Not editorializing...
Wed, 06/16/2010 - 15:46 — louiselee44just stating a fact -
Choosing a superintendent to specifically implement and support a school board’s plan of action is not uncommon in Wake County. When I began teaching in 1976, according to written accounts and the word of school board members of that day, John Murphy was hand-picked for the express purpose of implementing the merged system's student assignment plan, and to introduce magnet schools to our system. That’s a well-known fact. Then, in 1981, Dr. Walter Marks took over as superintendent, to expand the magnet movement through the “Schools of Choice” program.
What indications?
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 12:20 — Bob_SconceCare to elaborate? If you're talking about that one article that Keung linked to in the previous blog post, I suggest that you look into the author of that article a little bit as well as the facts of the firm. I think you'll find that there's no meat there, and that the author has a clear, rather extreme, agenda.