Your children. Not mine.

Last week, WCPSS Chairwoman Christine Kushner wrote an article for UNC-Chapel Hill's Morehead-Cain Scholars website. (Yeah, that's a mouthful in itself.)

Her article is titled "The real crisis in public education, and how to fix it".

First of all, "The real crisis"? High and mighty much?

Anyway... I wrote a Letter to the Editor to the News & Observer in response to Ms. Kushner's ridiculous and insulting claim that it is the parents of Wake County that cause her and our school system such heartburn.

As it hasn't been published (yet), I thought I would share it with you here. Enjoy.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2015:

WCPSS Chair Christine Kushner has proudly announced that it is the parents of Wake County who are hurting the public school system. Yes, you. And me. And every other caring parent who has chosen to stay with the public school system yet stands up for their child. According to our School Board, you are a horrible person and simply messing things up.

Kushner condescendingly claims in the article that "individual choice" is the real crisis in our schools. She berates and belittles parents for basically being good parents. She hates parents who make decisions that best serve their own children without considering the "common good". Hates them.

So, it is a little surprising to find out that Ms. Kushner chose to send her child to one of the most exclusive publicly-funded high schools in NC. That's right. She made an "individual choice" for her child's education. A choice that was made, I would assume, based on what was best her family and her child - because I don't see how sending her child to a limited enrollment high school with a highly competitive admission process that is fully funded by the state (including tuition, room and board) helps the rest of us.

Apparently, the common good is your problem to solve...with your children - not hers.

What a patronizing hypocrite.

What's the question; what's the answer?

In 2009, the parents of Wake County spoke. They elected a majority on theWCPSS School Board who supported the end to the mindless reassignment of their children. These School Board members bravely broke the mold after decades of diversity busing. Busing that not only adversely affected the education of suburban students but was eventually proven by WCPSS itself to have no positive impact on the education of the poor students targeted for those long distance assignments. After a few immediate and key resignations and retirements, many doors were opened to the changes needed in our school system.

The assignment policy was amended. Diversity goals were removed. An emphasis was placed on the educational needs of students and the involvement of parents. After years of mandatory year-round assignments and families split by school calendars, choice was resurrected. The ’09 School Board members ran on a platform of providing the necessary resources to students – not busing students for diversity under the guise of a better education. Their policies promoted stability, community involvement, and predictability in assignment in their attempt to create a school system that was responsive not critical.

But that didn’t last long.

Some were outraged at the very thought of removing diversity as a goal in assignment. They did all they could to create and spread fear around our community of what could happen. They painted their own message in the media of resegregation and the isolation of minorities. In 2011, a new majority-Democratic Board was elected to save and restore diversity.

So how is it that just last week the N&O published in an article that states the number of high-poverty schools has more than doubled under the direction of the new School Board? Let that sink in….more than doubled – from 18 to 46. Twelve WCPSS schools now have populations of more than 70% low-income students. There were none under the ’09 Board.

The current School Board has had five years to undo the changes they deemed as “destructive” and “racist” and yet have chosen to do absolutely nothing. Not only have they not taken any action on the changes made back in ’09, their inaction and apathy have done more to make their fears a reality than anything else. And their friends - who raised a ruckus and feigned concern about the “loss” of diversity - are now silent and uninterested because their Democratic friends are faithfully leading the charge.

Or are they?

The N&O editorial this past weekend addresses this issue. It questions these numbers but it totally misses the mark. The question we should be asking is not “Do we pursue diversity or do we let segregation return?” That is a lazy, simple-minded question and only serves to create the same fearful rhetoric we heard years ago.

What we should be asking is “What can we do to improve education for every child in Wake County?” It’s a tough question with many answers and just as many opinions. I agree that we are at a crossroads as a county and community. But diversity is not it. There are so many others ways to improve education and address the needs of our students than assignment. There are better conversations to have. Our crossroads is ensuring we don’t go back to the way it was.

Although our current School Board has managed to create a school system that reflects exactly what they claimed they were against, we simply can’t let the diversity pendulum swing completely back.

Did she really say that?

What does Zora Felton have to say? 

Here are some of the most ridiculous quotes from her campaign:


When speaking at the League of Womens Voters (GSIW) forum about busing:

"People are bused -- but that's a mode of transportation." 
"Busing is a mode of transportation."

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When speaking about ways to address student discipline:

"I have a little philosophy. I think that children around the age of 12 need to either work in a factory or the farm."

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In her Indy Weekly questionnaire, Zora clearly supports assignments based on how much money you make - and the reassignment of your children if "imbalance" occurs at your school - or another school, or another school, or another school...

"I support policies that lead to diverse student populations in terms of family income." 

"While sometimes a (low-income) percentage can be arbitrary, nonetheless, it is good to be vigilant in making sure that adjustments are made when the school's ability to help every child becomes overwhelming"

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

When asked about her support for year-round schools:

"Folks, it's just not that much fun to find something to do in August...or July. OK? It's hot." 

(I'm surprised she didn't just throw out the insulting "It's so much cheaper to travel during track out.")

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But - here's my favorite from Zora... and the one that should give you pause...

"I wish I had enough name recognition and enough money to run for the Legislature. Ok? But, I don't."

Clearly, Zora has bigger ideas for her political career. 
And the School Board is just a stepping-stone to her aspirations for higher office.

We need commitment. Not a GSIW-backed politician wannabe.

Vote for Prickett on October 8th.




 

The Rat in the Hat

 
Look at me! Look at me! Look at me now!
It is fun to have fun but you have to know how.


Very fitting for Bill Fletcher. Full of trickery and lies.
(Yes, that's his goofy picture on the left.)

Back in 1993, when Fletcher first ran for School Board, he ran as a critic of diversity busing. Like any sane person, he was against the reassignment of children over and over again simply to meet a diversity quota.

Well, that was his first (and probably most damaging) trick on the citizens of Wake County. Once in office, Fletcher's true intent became very clear. He voted in favor of EVERY SINGLE REASSIGNMENT PLAN from 1993 to 2005. Twelve years of deeply-entrenched diversity busing plans - and Fletcher voted for every one of them.

Is it any wonder that Fletcher came in 3rd place the last time he ran in 2005?  Yup, didn't even make it into a runoff. The citizens of Cary were sick and tired of him, his lies, and being yanked around and ignored by a system that Fletcher happily created. (Then, like a knife in the back, the current majority appointed him back to the School Board this year.)

So, why does Fletcher think he can fool us again? Well, you can thank his cousin, Jim Goodmon. Goodmon is a mouthpiece in Wake County (He is the CEO of Capital Broadcasting) and has the media at his fingertips. He is active with Great Schools in Wake and has very deep pockets. There is no way that Fletcher will vote against anything his cousin wants. Goodmon has funded and continues to fund all the 'pro-diversity' candidates because, well, busing the poor out of Raleigh makes Jim happy. And Fletcher will use his cousin's influence and money to continue to lie and hope you don't remember the truth.

Another little tidbit about Fletcher. He used to sit as a member of the Board for Big Brothers Big Sisters - the place John Tedesco used to work. Fletcher, as this article implies, was instrumental in pushing Tedesco out of his job. Of course, Fletcher won't tell you the truth about that - but it certainly explains why Tedesco voted for a member of GSIW rather than Fletcher when filling this School Board seat. 

And this mess is so big
And so deep and so tall,
We cannot pick it up
There is no way at all!

Yup, pretty much sums up what Fletcher will do to this county and our children.

Vote for Caggia on October 8th.

Downhill

Think what you may - but Kevin Hill really is a smart guy. Evil and a complete jerk...but smart.

Sure, we caught him scheduling and attending secret meetings. And, we all now know that he has been secretly collaborating his School Board business with members of Great Schools in Wake. And he had the audacity to call parents "selfish and anti-social" in response to a parent's question. But, honestly, so what? He still sits in that Board chair - arrogantly and unaffected. Spouting lies and expecting us to believe them.

Hill was Chairman back in 2012 when he led the charge to fire Supt. Tony Tata.  Hill came up with numerous unsubstantiated excuses when Tata was let go without cause. But, we all know Hill's a liar and Tata's firing was the most partisan move in WCPSS.

My last public information request - the one which has numerous emails from Hill BCC'd to members of GSIW - also contained an interesting email from Hill to Tata.

In this email, Hill thanks Tata for "your letter" and then proceeds to seemingly clarify his opinions on Tata's military background. This email strongly suggests that Hill criticized Tata's military background and service to our country. So much so that Tata felt it necessary to write a letter to Hill. Could Tata's years of service to our country be the reason he was fired?

I asked for a copy of that letter from WCPSS. I was told: "Mr. Hill did not keep a copy".

That's it. Plain and simple -- he doesn't have it. No concern that this is a public document and falls with the General Assembly's definition of "public record". No concern for the contents of this letter and the possible exposure of why Tata was really fired by Hill, Sutton, Evans, Martin and Kushner. 

All Hill had to do was say "I don't have it" and we're all supposed to move along. 

Like I said, smart guy. 

You reap what you sow.

Lies?  Check.
Name-calling?  Check.
Threats?  Check.

And now you can add assault to the list.

Sadly, I'm talking about our School Board.

At last week's public hearing, School Board rep Susan Evans thought she had been deputized to be in charge. After the meeting had finished, parents hung around, very dismayed by the lack of response to their concerns, and began yelling out questions.

School Board rep Keith Sutton - who was running the meeting because our real Chair, Kevin Hill, apparently couldn't be bothered to attend - chose to answer these questions, sorta. Using the microphone from the stage, he deferred and deflected -- rather than act like a normal person and walk down to speak with parents personally. After all, the formal hearing was over.

(On a side note, Chair Hill doesn't like parents - at all - and believes our demands are selfish so maybe it's best he wasn't there. Read this blog post for a little insight to his hatred.)

Anyway -- Sutton did nothing to control the situation or to appease the masses and, as such, Susan Evans saw her opportunity. 

As Evans doesn't have an ounce of compassion nor any understanding of the very personal emotion of watching your children get forcibly reassigned (Evans' children had long-term stable assignments in the magnet system), she chose to argue with the parents in the crowd and explain how wrong they were. She placed the blame of their impending reassignment on staff and the student assignment team - even though this directive from the Board - which Evans supported - is the only reason parents are facing reassignment.

During this back and forth, as he certainly can't be outdone, Jim Martin chimed in with some mindless "I promise to listen" drivel. Surprisingly, he didn't mention he has a PhD.

School Board rep Deborah Prickett then took her turn with the microphone - asking parents about their level of content with the old Choice Plan. As the families in the audience were facing reassignment as a direct result of the Democrat's decision to abandon the Choice Plan, it was a very fair and appropriate question. 

Not according to Susan Evans.

Evans proceeded to manhandle Prickett, wrestled the microphone out of her hand mid-sentence, and declared:

"This is not appropriate. This is not the purpose of the meeting."

I'm pretty sure it was very appropriate and very relevant to the meeting. Those parents in the audience took time to express their concerns about the education of their children and the impact of reassignment on their family yet Evans didn't think talking about it was appropriate?

Evans - who protested arm in arm with the NAACP and GSIW prior to her election - obviously has different definitions of what is appropriate - depending on who you are.

Evans can be seen in this video disrupting a public School Board meeting in 2010. (Watch for the green shirt/black sweater.) She is clapping in the background after her friends crossed School Board security lines, resulting in their arrests.

That sort of behavior is apparently appropriate in the Book of Ethics by Susan Evans. But not speaking to parents at a public hearing?

Now, it's one thing to urge on your friends in their acts of civil disobedience but it is something completely different when you physically put your hands on someone. (Sounds like a Kindergarten speech.)

You would hope this would be common sense to an adult. Apparently not. 

Not only did Evans display childish and bullying behavior in her physical attack on Deborah Prickett, she managed to violate Board Policy about Harassment/Bullying. 

But, does anyone care? What does Supt. Gainey have to say about the Board's behavior? What about Chair Hill? Will he continue to ignore the abhorrent behavior or will complaints be filed against Evans?

Evans' actions have clearly created a very hostile work environment for her fellow Board members. (What's next? A punch in the gut? Keith Sutton - possibly our next Board Chair - has already threatened to kick everyone's asses.) Evans, however, has also managed to create a fear among her constituents about being in disagreement while in her presence - an obviously dangerous combination.

So, do we, as parents and taxpayers, just continue to sit back and watch? If we continue to ignore the actions and decisions of this School Board, we will reap what we sow. 

You and your family just might be next. 

Your future is your past

Have you seen your future?

WCPSS has posted the recommendations for the "bridge" plan for 2013-14. And it provides some very good insight into what is coming down the pike with the BIG reassignment plan in 2014-15. 

If you didn't know already, the new Board majority voted to move back to base assignments - which caused great disruption and upheaval to our children and families for the past decade - rather than continue with the Choice Plan, which promoted proximity and promised stability. And, yes, nodes are back too.

In a quick reading, here are some things we all should be concerned about:

1. Anyone can choose to move back to their base assignment based on their 2011 node assignment. Or can they? In the proposal, it states: "Students participating in the Base Declaration will have a guaranteed seat at their base school for the new school year."

Sounds great! But, wait...there's more. 

 "Unless the school becomes fully capped based on numbers requesting to return to their base school." Huh? That's a guarantee? Some will get their base assignment; some will not. How is that any different than not receiving your first choice, which the anti-Tata's so whined about as a problem with the choice plan?

2. This proposal includes a stay-where-you-start policy. The Dem majority on the Board have touted the implementation of this sort of policy in their push back to base assignments. In his editorial rant, Kevin Hill referred to this new policy as a way to provide stability. Well, what he didn't say is that this Board's version of stability will not, in most cases, come with bus transportation. Read it and weep.

3. Those who participated in the Choice Plan last year are now being told that their promised feeder patterns "...will be honored, to the extent possible." Doesn't sound promising, does it? And, once again, your choice to maintain that feeder pattern may not come with transportation.

Keep in mind -- this is just the beginning. This proposal mostly addresses the opening of a few new schools. Next year, the Board will address what they have coined as "hot spots" across the county - and more than likely use the same guidelines as listed in this proposal.

No bus, no choice, no stability, and no recourse. Welcome back to 2008.

What goes around, comes around

Back in January of this year, I wrote a blog post about the AdvancED complaint filed by the NAACP. (Read it first - if you haven't already. It will help with the history.)

While I stand by my claim that their complaint was ridiculous, I had to chuckle when I read that the Wake County Taxpayers Association (WCTA) has filed a complaint against the new Board majority. Now, I don't find it funny as it relates to our school system (although, accreditation is just a public perception thing, if you ask me), but it is extremely ironic. Or is this Karma?

The Democrats of Wake County - namely Great Schools in Wake - have taught others how to fight dirty and now their tactics are being used against them.

But, the WCTA complaint against the new Board is no joke. Unlike the NAACP, WCTA has their facts (and act) together. Each complaint listed is supported by documentation - whether a media article or a WCPSS document or email. They lay out a concise trail of breadcrumbs for AdvancEd on some serious issues of "...poor governance, inept and irresponsible leadership and lack of transparency and direction", as the complaint states. And this is before the 5-4 partisan vote to fire Supt. Tata!

So, where is the outrage over this? After the NAACP filed their complaint, Yevonne Brannon and her GSIW fringe group were shouting from the rooftops. In October 2010, Brannon and Patty Williams issued the following statement:

“By acting with impunity in moving forward with a massive student reassignment plan,
the Board majority has caused the public to lose confidence in and question their ability
to govern responsibly. Even citizens who voted for majority members are saying, ‘This is not what I voted for.’”

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Here's what Brannon said in January 2011:

“This majority repeatedly claims to care about the wellbeing of students, yet, when the going gets tough, they put their own self-interests ahead of those of our children. Once again, they are rushing to judgment without regard for how their decisions will impact the reputation of our award-winning school system.”

Wow. Are Brannon's words coming back to haunt her?

After witnessing the haphazard leadership and partisan actions and decisions of this Board majority, her statement is quite prophetic. And yet GSIW remains silent. And we're to believe that it's not about politics? Yeah, right.

In the last monitoring report from AdvancED, the only praise given was to Superintendent Tata. The AdvancED team acknowledged Tata's leadership and commitment:

"...but the Board has begun moving in the right direction with the Superintendent being a stabilizing force."

"A common theme during interviews was the significance of the Superintendents’ influence on the direction of the system in providing governance and leadership focused on student learning and system effectiveness. Described as a “calmer” Board, stakeholders attributed this change unequivocally to the Superintendent’s leadership."

So, how is it that the only person in WCPSS leadership who was recognized by AdvancED - a firm that is "dedicated to advancing excellence in education"- was summarily fired? 

The Board was scheduled to submit a progress report to AdvancED by November 1st even prior to the new WCTA complaint. Now, they have the onus of responding to the new complaint as well. 

Considering Supt. Tata was fired without cause with a 5-4 vote, you must wonder if AdvancED will believe the continued lie from the Board majority - that his firing was not political and not personal?

Let's hope not.


 

Power, Corruption & Lies

C'mon... Do we really believe that Board members Susan Evans, Christine Kushner & Jim Martin aren't secretly involved with the partisan and very hateful group, Great Schools in Wake? You'd be foolish to believe otherwise. 

Back in May, I wrote this blog post. Members of GSIW were somehow completely aware of what was going to happen during the Board meeting in June the following month. How?  Because they were orchestrating it thru their members - Evans, Kushner & Martin. 

GSIW "suggested" in their email for a push to create a directive for a new student assignment plan. Voila!...the Board majority had a new directive prepared and ready to approve for the June meeting. Coincidence? I think not. 

(BTW -- here's a photo of GSIW and their "diverse" group. Notice in the article that Board member Susan Evans is referred to as a "coalition leader" - even though she continues to deny involvement with this group. Evans also placed a GSIW leader to chair her Board Advisory Committee. Does she really think we're that stupid or is she just that arrogant?)

The WakeEd blog had a post recently about Yevonne Brannon, the leader of GSIW, containing another email sent to her group. Her email blathers on and on with praise for her friends/members on the School Board yet berates Supt. Tata at every opportunity. Since then, this small group of crazy women (honestly, have you heard them before?) have organized their comments at every School Board meeting to bash and blame Tata.

So, is it really surprising to anyone that Chair Hill and Vice-Chair Sutton have now scheduled a closed session meeting to discuss "personnel matters" on Monday? 

Are they firing Tata? 

Yevonne and her GSIW biddies have ordered it -- therefore, Evans, Kushner & Martin must make it so. That's how the School Board rolls these days.

Add to this all the push-pull of student assignment (which GSIW is intimately involved with too) and you, as a parent in Wake County, are losing every chance of being heard. 

Your School Board is being controlled by a small fringe group who don't have to follow rules or ethics policies. They just make a demand -- and the Democrats on the Board respond.

The days of parents being recognized in WCPSS are slowly slipping away. Choice is being shown the door and stability will soon be a memory. To put a nail in the coffin, Board member Susan Evans, has already stated:

"...we have the opportunity through assignment to assign kids wherever we feel like is in their best interests."

Apparently, that's what GSIW wants -- because that's certainly not what the parents of Wake County have been fighting for over the years.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/wake-county-school-board-on-assigning-students-in-their-best-interests#storylink=cpy

Out of focus

Let me start out by saying that I believe assignment - and how students are assigned - should have nothing to do with achievement. For decades, the solution to addressing student achievement in WCPSS was always to fall back on student assignment. If a school wasn't performing, students were moved to other schools to make the school "healthy" once again. That solution didn't actually do anything positive to the education of those who were moved - you simply can't make a child smarter or perform better just by reassigning them. But, it made some people feel good. Really good. It was a cheap, feel-good way to perpetuate the awards for diversity and the perception of "no bad schools". It also, however, created much unnecessary instability, did nothing to improve achievement and ticked off many parents royally.

WCPSS was on its way to untangling assignment from achievement with the new Choice Assignment Plan. All parents were given choice - with a mix of proximity, calendar, and magnets. All families were promised stability at every school level and a predictable future as their children aged up. Plain and simple - this plan provided what parents wanted for their children and families -- and had little to do with raising achievement.

As a result of this new focus, Supt. Tata and his staff have worked to understand the educational needs of different schools and students and have implemented academic solutions to address achievement -- and we are now seeing very successful results. Just last week, the NC Department of Public Instruction released performance data for Wake County schools -- and the results are incredible. There have been gains across the district - at many schools and subgroups. (You can look up your school here.)

So, rather than fret over the demographics of a school and how to create and maintain a utopian mixture of students, it's obvious that our focus should remain on how each school population could be served better academically. We've seen the success - and it could be only the beginning.

Instead, however, the School Board has thumbed their noses at parents and chose to direct staff to link assignment with achievement once again. They didn't even wait to see how many more successes could be achieved. The new Choice Assignment Plan has been nixed (without even getting a chance) and we're moving back to "healthy" schools, set aside seats for certain types of student, limited choice and quotas for every school.

Back to a system that believes assignment and "diversity" will magically increase achievement. In reality, it will only serve to make the Democratic Board members feel good about themselves. After all, that's all it's done in the past.

And now for something really scary...

As I talked about in my last post, the WCPSS Board majority is raising the dead.

Yes, the horrors of nodes, multi-year reassignment plans and assignment quotas are on the verge of a unwanted return.

And that's not even the scary part.

A parent from Kevin Hill's district wrote to him with concerns about changing the new Choice Assignment plan. In his reply, Mr. Hill stated: 

"I agree with the following: 'Parent choice' proceeds from the belief that the purpose of education is to provide individual students with an education. In fact, educating the individual is but a means to the true end of education, which is to create a viable social order to which individuals contribute and by which they are sustained. 'Family choice' is, therefore, basically selfish and anti-social in that it focuses on the 'wants' of a single family rather than the 'needs' of society."

Say WHAT?!

Kevin Hill, the chairman of the Wake County Board of EDUCATION, does not believe that the purpose of education is to provide individual students with an education?!

Hill believes your children should be used "to create a viable social order"?

O.M.G.

Yeah, read that again...and again...until it really sinks in. 

It's hard to believe Hill actually admits that he doesn't think education is about educating at all. But, after years of pretending otherwise, he did. 

So, the jig's up.

It is now clear that this new Board majority isn't out to help you or your children. So, you can quit emailing them about not getting your 1st choice, or not liking your feeder pattern, or your disgust over their sneaky midnight vote to revive the old assignment plan. It does not matter.

What matters to them is what part you and your children will play in their socially-engineered agenda.  To them, you, your family and your children are just pieces of their societal puzzle.

And we should be very scared.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/06/20/2150093/change-in-wake-student-assignment.html#storylink=cpy

Were you even awake?

Well, Wake County, here's what you elected.

The School Board waited until 12:53 A.M. (yes, A.M.) to rush through a vote -- without public input -- that will drastically alter the new choice assignment plan. 

You know, the plan that our superintendent and staff have worked on for the past 2 years, the plan where everyone has already made their choices for next year, the plan that gave our families choice and our children stability, the plan that hasn't even been fully implemented yet. 

And guess what? They have directed staff to go back to a multi-year, node-driven assignment plan that incorporates socioeconomic and academic achievement goals. 

Gosh, that sounds awfully familiar. 

During the meeting on Tuesday (and into Wednesday) and just before voting on the directive that will probably reassign your child, School Board member Susan Evans felt it was important to remind everyone who she is and what she thinks of us -- in her usual arrogant and condescending fashion.

"While I acknowledge that, first of all, the Raleigh Chamber and the Wake Ed Partnership are valuable partners in our community, and I respect the input of all citizens, at these board meetings on the blogs, wherever they choose to give their input, I just wanted to remind Ms. Prickett and the board that we are the elected officials charged with making these important decisions on behalf of the school system."

In other words, everyone can go pound sand.

Wake Education Partnership called this vote a "...late-night, partisan debate..." with the "...abscence of a collaborative approach."

The Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce also issued a statement to the School Board warning them -- and reminding them of the past: 

"Based on our research we believe that an address based approach advocated in the directive will require mandatory assignment to fill schools." "With a sizeable majority of parents satisfied with the current choice plan we anticipate a change will create disruption among a new group of stakeholders."

Disruption is putting it mildly.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/greater-raleigh-chamber-of-commerce-disappointed-in-wake-county-school-boards-student-assignm#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/greater-raleigh-chamber-of-commerce-disappointed-in-wake-county-school-boards-student-assignm#storylink=cpy

So, where do we stand now? That's a good question. Some are claiming this was merely a directive; others are calling this the creation of a new plan for 2013-14. Regardless of what this turns out to be (and, let's be honest -- this really is a return to the days of yearly reassignments), you should be awake and be concerned.

This is just another step in the wrong direction.

That's what friends are for

Now wait just a minute.

Board member Jim Martin said what?

Martin said the provost of N.C. State asked him to help out.

For May 29th's policy committee meeting, Martin, the chair of that committee, added an agenda item to discuss "Student Assignment for Extended Family Professional Leave". And then, at the meeting, proceeded to talk about how to create a policy specifically to serve his colleagues at NCSU.

Is this really a pressing issue? Well, for Mr. Martin, a professor at NCSU, it is. After all, this is his employer we're talking about.

I questioned Mr. Martin about the unethical nature of creating a policy to serve his friends and co-workers at the request of his boss. His response, in a nutshell, was..."The Provost is not my boss."

Martin goes on to say in his email..."You must realize that NCSU is one of the large employers of Wake County. It is for that reason that we should pay attention to matters impacting that employer. Careful attention should be paid to policies that impact any of the County's major employers."

He isn't concerned with, as he called them during the committee meeting.."the lowest common denominator". In Martin-speak, that would be those people who aren't as fortunate to have professional opportunities but have to leave the system for a short period for other reasons.

According to Mr. Hui on the WakeED blog.."[Martin contends]...that it's not equitable to say that because famlies of transient students have less resources than professionals that it's a reason not to go ahead with a leave policy."

So, let's boil it down....

Martin isn't concerned about you and me. He isn't concerned about those with less opportunities and less resources. He only wants to serve those he works with, those that attend his son's school and those who are just like him.

So, how do you feel about that? If you work for a major employer...let's say...NSCU, for example... Mr. Martin will pay careful attention to you and your children. He'll work to create policies to help you to ensure you're happy.

If you don't, well, you know...

You're an afterthought. After MYR and years of reassignment, it's an attitude those of us in Apex are familiar with.

It appears that attitude is making a comeback.

Ethics, schmethics

Do you remember when Susan Evans was questioned about her continued involvement with GSIW? In this email, she claimed:

"I am neither actively involved in their [GSIW's] activities, nor am I given any advance notice of the content or distribution of their press releases."

Hmmm. Really?

So, how does GSIW already know what is going to happen at the June 5th Board meeting?  

Here's an email I just received:

From: Calla Wright <ccaac_aacca@yahoo.com>

Subject: [CoalitionofConcernedCitizensforAfricanAmericanChildren] Fw: May Meeting Notes, YOUR HELP NEEDED

Date: May 20, 2012 4:25:20 PM EDT

To: coalitionofconcernedcitizensforafricanamericanchildren@yahoogroups.com

Cc: parentsfordiversity@yahoogroups.com

--- On Sat, 5/19/12, yevonne brannon <ybrannon@gmail.com> wrote:

From: yevonne brannon <ybrannon@gmail.com>
Subject: May Meeting Notes, YOUR HELP NEEDED
To:
Date: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 11:11 AM

I am very sorry that you missed our meeting on Tuesday.  Your help is needed!!

Here are the meeting notes.  Please review and let us know how you can help.  ACTIVATE your friends to join you!  It is very important NOT to stand down in the month of June!! We still have many opportunities to make a difference! Some of  the critical decisions facing the board in June---from the magnet study results, the results of round one and two of assignment plan, to voting on the budget, and directives needed NOW for the 2013 Student assignment plan—let’s make sure we have a strong voice at the June 5 and June 19 board meetings.

 

Work to DO: 

1.  JUNE 5 Board Meeting: We are going ALL out to get a lot of speakers at this meeting.  We are still working to get the board to at least direct the staff for the 2013 assignment PLAN.  We need everyone to show up and speak.  We can help you with speeches. PLEASE talk to Amy W and Lynn and coordinate this effort.  Here’s the bottom line: June 5 will be the last board meeting before school is out.  We need to let the BOE know how well they did this school year!! GIVE them their Grade for the school year, did they pass?? Did they make appropriate progress in a year?  Come on, this could be fun!!!!  (other topics include the budget, the transportation mess, the horrid behavior of the feeble four, the horrid CHOICE plan in summary, the need for NEW PLAN directive for staff to start working on now!)

2. Research:

1)      Amy Lee is working on the update on Round Two of the student assignment results. Patty is working on the web site update and on various fact sheets.  Please contact Patty if you can help with the fact sheets.

2)      Call/email Amy Lee and Sharon if you can help with the IMPACT of the Choice Plan on our schools.  This is critical research and will help us in other legal actions.

 

3. Letters to the Editor: Please consider drafting a ton of LTES right away on the following three topics:

1)      Lack of transportation for those assigned without transportation. This is just as wrong as the Unassigned.  If you were an unassigned, then you will especially understand this issue. Use the I contact today to draft a short LTE.

2)      Let’s find a better way:  NEED a lot of push as the next school board meeting (JUNE 5) to MAKE A NEW PLAN for 2013.  Start by getting a lot of LTEs on asking for a directive that stops using the CHOICE proximity model and starts using a RESIDENCEY based assignment plan.  We need to set the stage for the June 5 meeting with LTEs.  If you draft, send to Patty who will edits and give to Amy W and Lynn to get published. 

3)      VALUE of magnet schools.  Clearly, magnet schools are under attack.  PLEASE take the survey and write an LTE supporting the many important objectives of the magnet program. See I contact you received for points to make.

 4.  TAKE THE SURVEY on Magnets:

1)      Yes, this is not appropriate to have a thrown together –shallow survey—only online!! But we need to make sure it is balanced in the responses.  Please get your pta to print copies or your church/synagogue and get those mailed in to central office.

2)      Make sure you add in the comments how unfair and hasty this approach to magnet reviews is and how it is not ethical to continue to attack one of our best options at attempting to keep our schools well utilized and balanced.

5.  Let’s Find a Better way.org :  Please keep putting in your stories here—this is our way to document the tragedy of the Choice Plan.  Let your contacts know of this web site.

September 29, 2012 FORUM: We are planning a statewide forum for this date.  Working title: Protecting the Public in Public Education, or Public Education is the Better Way or something positive but urgent about how we need to fight against the attacks on Public Education (lack of funding, charter schools, vouchers/tax credits for private schools, revitalization of schools services, the reformers etc.)  If you have suggestions for focus of workshop, speakers etc. please let Patty or me know ASAP. We have started a planning committee---are you interested in helping?  This will be done with GSNC (now Public Education First).

 

6.  UPDATES:

Great Schools in NC has changed to a new name due to issues with domain names/searches etc. We will now be called Public Education First.  We have new web site, Public Education First.org 

More details later.  We will have work to do in changing out our current web and face book page.  We are still seeking funding.  We had a great one day retreat this week and hope to see more progress on this statewide effort soon.  If you want to work on this project, let me know. Also, please nominate names or organizations of folks across the state who should be involved in this coalition of individuals and groups to advocate for public education. Here is revised draft of the GSNC=PEF mission: Public Education First mobilizes citizens to advocate for a system of high-quality, equitable, and diverse public schools for all North Carolina students.

Lots of work to do, let me know how you can be a part of our important work.

Peace and love, Y

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that either Evans or Kushner (maybe both?) are continuing to guide the direction of GSIW and giving insider tips to what they believe are the necessary next steps in stopping the new assignment plan.

Some of these statements are quite particular -- and some use definitive terms.

"We are still working to get the board to at least direct the staff for the 2013 assignment PLAN."

"We need to set the stage for the June 5 meeting with LTEs."

Still working? The 2013 assignment plan? Set the stage? 

Since when is there a 2013 assignment plan? 

Does this mean that the Board majority really is going to completely ignore the cries from parents for a neighborhood school (and choice and stability and predictability) and move back to node-based assignments because that's what GSIW wants? (See my last post.)

Sounds to me like there's been some improper discussions going on. How else would 
Brannon know how to "set the stage" for the next Board meeting?

I think Supt. Tata apologized to these two way too soon.