Get Schooled

By HS Teacher Too

February 25, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this

I’m not sure where the line is, but I’d say all signs are that the Clayton members have crossed it!

Secondary question: If the board members collectively step down, will that have any effect on Clayton being able to hang on to its accreditation?

By Beautiful

February 25, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

At what point should elected officials step down?

i can’t believe a question like this was even asked! when you pluck something up this bad, it’s time for you 2 go.

By GeezGuys

February 25, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

At what point should they step down? I dunno, how about…when their school system is so mismanaged it’s going to lose accreditation?

Was this a trick question? Seems pretty easy to me.

By catlady

February 25, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this

Nice to see that,as always, the Central Office and BOE at Clayton County are putting themselves ahead of the students. Installing additional security there instead of at the high schools and middle schools where there is so much violence! NOW do we see why the school board is in so much trouble? Their me-first attitude shines again!

I don’t know about allowing the BOE to resign. Wouldn’t that make it harder to prosecute them for their illegal activities? And shouldn’t they HAVE to clean up the mess they have made and show us how they CAN work together for the benefit of the students? Oh, you say that ISN’t why they ran for school board? You mean they ran for personal benefit???

By JustMe

February 25, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

When you become a laughing stock of the nation….. When you mess up your responsibilities so very badly that the majority of people ask you to resign…. When you are caught red-handed taking money under the table or doing other unethicaly things….

But most importantly: When you place your own constituents in harms way!!!!

By Deb

February 25, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

It’s all about credibility. If the same people are there in September for the next audit what confidence level would there be. Sonny and the state of Georgia sure doen’t have any confidence in the current administration. Cudos for sepping in quick.

By GeezGuys

February 25, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

Here’s another hint it’s time to step down: when the security screening for your office resembles a TSA checkpoint

By Vince

February 25, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

Let’s see…

The Chamber of Commerce has asked them to resign.

A coalition of Clayton students has asked them to resign.

CCEA has asked them to resign.

If they had even a shread of integrity you wouldn’t have had to even ask this question. They would have left a week ago.

By V for Vendetta

February 25, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

I would say that when you suck at your job, especially if you hold an ELECTED position (one that implies you have the good-faith of a collective body of people), then you should step down.

Of course, then most of the elected officials in a bunch of the metro counties would have to step down, along with a large number of elected officials in the state. Oh, and don’t forget about congress. Oh dear. :-)

By Joy

February 25, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

The students are getting together to fight the school board. I am so proud of them, fighting for there education.

By Joy

February 25, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

The students are getting together to fight the school board. I am so proud of them, fighting for there education.

By mmm

February 25, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this

NOW!!!!! (I say this only because it is impossible to resign yesterday!)

By Teacher, Too

February 25, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

Okay, they all need to go,especially the four named in the SACS review. However, the one who takes the cake is the one who called WSB, crying that she was asked to resign (as part of the board). When I read (WBS had to transcribe the phone call because you couldn’t really understand her through the crying mess), I thought, ‘That’s it. The woman is crying that she’s looking out for the kids…’ Hello, no one on that school board has been looking out for those kids. They are the most petty, racially motivated, ego-centric school board I’ve ever seen.

By jim d

February 25, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

NOW——- would work.

By flipper

February 25, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

How about when they are in the squad car on their way to prison. That shouldn’t be too long from now.

By Tony

February 25, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

The scathing report from SACS summarized several incidents into a few pages. Having serving on panels like this, I can only imagine the vast number of things they could have cited. There is more than enough blame to go around to all the BOE members and it is a shame they continue to put themselves ahead of the children of Clayton County.

However, it is also a shame that the community was unable to collect even 100 valid signatures in its recent recall effort. I’m afraid this speaks to the apathy of the citizens.

By yesiamworried

February 25, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

If they resign, will that save the system? Maybe, short term. The problems in Clayton are systemic. Incompetent board members are part of it, but parents who expect the board members to micromanage are another part of it. The parents have to be retrained as well.

By Attn: Clayton Parents

February 25, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this

Again, what no one who wants the “entire board” to resign based on this report is willing to explain:

If, in a twenty seven page report, there is zero mention of the Chairman’s micromanaging emails (on a state computer on state time no less) zero mention of the Chairman violating federal privacy rights by giving out a union official’s social security number to the public, zero mention of the Chairman’s role in approving a legally invalid contract for the new board attorney, if given the documented evidence there is not a single word concerning this and other actions of the Chairman, how can one say this “report” is objective?

And if Elgart is willing to compromise the integrity of the report to give political cover to the Chairman, why should we trust any of the so-called recommendations?

Doesn’t mean there are major problems in Clayton. What it means is that to solve them we need to know the investigation was accurate and objective.

People want to call for the “entire board” to be removed, because it’s easier to feel good about “outrage” than actually think things through.

That’s why none of them, when confronted with the facts and logic concerning Elgart’s BLATANT omissions in the report, can’t and won’t respond with a reason this “report” should be considered objective.

By Attn: Clayton Parents

February 25, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

Re: “CCEA has asked them to resign.”

Can anyone say “Grandstand Ploy 101”?

Of course CCEA asked them to resign. They are tired of losing money to an organization that supports teachers, when teachers find out (all too often the hard way) that an organization that counts teachers and administrators as members cannot truly advocate for teachers.

Of course Sid doesn’t mind that teachers aren’t supported, because he draws a full teacher’s salary not to teach, but rather sit in a comfy union office all day. (Judas sold out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, Sid sold out teachers for 30 years in the Teacher’s Retirement system)

That’s why Sid Chapman’s “call for resignation” has all the gravitas of wino on a subway calling for riders to “repent”.

By Attn: Clayton Parents

February 25, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this

To be clear, the my 4:52 post should have read, “Doesn’t mean that there aren’t major problems in the county” CLEARLY there are.

Still, actions should be based on a report that is objective, and not one that is power play for Elgart and his cronies as they attempt to hold YOUR children’s HOPE scholarships hostage to what they want, and not what the voters want.

And maybe people who are so completely naive as to think Elgart doesn’t have an axe to grind in all this need to read and research beyond what the media is giving you.

By In the style of By Attn: Clayton Parents

February 25, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this

Blah blah random blah blah in bold blah blah blah, more random bold blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah, meandering conspiracy theory that no one but me cares about, blah, blah blah.

Oh, and blah blah blah.

By Tony

February 25, 2008 6:02 PM | Link to this

It is my understanding the CCAE only called for four BOE members to resign. I believe the NAACP has called for all nine to do so, as did the Chamber of Commerce. All of them should do so.

Attn:Clayton Parents, the quote from Shakespeare, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” seems very applicable to your desperate pleadings. The SACS report provides more than sufficient basis for its recommendations regardless of your claims of its omissions. You can choose to become part of the solutions or you can remain part of the problem.

By thomas

February 25, 2008 6:28 PM | Link to this

First of all, the reason CCEA only called four members to resign is because those four members were not part of the establishment. Two of those board members are affliated with MACE, a rival professional organization.

For some strange reason, nobody is demanding that Ericka Davis resign. She has been on the board for years and is NOTORIOUS!!! She was on the board the last time they had SACS troubles. She is also a flunky and in bed with Mark Elgart, SACS president. It seems when some black folks start standing up (rocking the boat), SACS comes out of the woodwork like roaches after dark. That’s all they are good for.

By Attn: Clayton Parents

February 25, 2008 7:12 PM | Link to this

Well Tony,

You can quote Shakespeare all you want, but it doesn’t address the questions about raised by the lack of reporting in the “report”. It’s not just a couple of minor points. It’s repeated, glaring omissions.

If Shakespeare were commenting on Ericka Davis, his quote might be “It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night like a rich jewel in Elgart’s ear” as he has given her a total free pass.

Have you verifed that the SACS report is even accuarte about all of it’s findings? Or just taken what the AJC have given you without the proverbial grain of salt?

If the objectivity of the report, the BLATANT omissions can’t be addressed, it seems reasonable to question the accuracy of the report as well.

Again, no one is trying to say there aren’t major problems on the board in Clayton, but when the Chairman goes without mention, it does call the report into question. (Speaking of quotes, whatever happened to “the buck stops here”?)

Shakespeare is applicable all right, as there’s definitely “something rotten in the state of Denmark”.

By LM

February 25, 2008 7:38 PM | Link to this

Officials should resign when it is obvious they cannot do the job. Did anyone see the 11-Alive clip this morning with the crying board member who had called in???

By catlady

February 25, 2008 8:06 PM | Link to this

This sort of reminds me of the Grady Hospital mess. They” just keep hangin on”.

I still think (half seriously) that the board members should be REQUIRED to STAY and fix their mess. No easy outs! If they resign, yeah, they give up some power, but shouldn’t they be required to get along, do the right things, etc? What a good example that would be to the students!

I am not sure I quite understand the ties that have been stated to HOPE and preK, for example. (Loss of SACS accrediation means kids cannot go to college, get HOPe, get Prek). Pre K functions in LOTS of non-SACS accredited situations (day care, etc). And don’t quite a few non-SACS accredited students still get HOPE via homeschooling or (perhaps) some private schools? I believe there is a separate accreditation agency for private schools. And of course, even SACS-accredited high schools have difficulty placing some kids in some colleges. Someone fill me in on this, please. (It seems like the last day or so the claims that lack of accrediation will do away with prek in Clayton Co have disappeared. Is this because someone actually looked INTO those claims instead of parroting the official party line?) Can someone CITE the HOPE, preK, etc rules that actually demand SACS accreditation? (Just asking out of my lack of knowledge) jim d or other citation guru?

IMHO, SACS accreditation has become a shell, a ghost, of what it used to be. This is based on my experience with it over 34 years’ time. My school recently went through reaccred. and it should NEVEr have passed. The good ole boy system is alive and well. We were “evaluated” by the buddies of our school supt. I was very disappointed with the lack of substance in the visit and work of the reeval committee. Very very sad. It used to be so much more demanding.

While I am at it, I am still bugged about the CC BOE providing for their own protection rather than the students’.

By Attn: Clayton Parents

February 25, 2008 10:45 PM | Link to this

Re: (From catlady about SACS) “IMHO, SACS accreditation has become a shell, a ghost, of what it used to be…The good ole boy system is alive and well.”

If you recall bloggers posted on here about their repeated attempts to get SACS involved in the Fulton county school system. I believe SACS did not even respond, much less investigate.

The difference? Elgart isn’t going to do anything to upset his “good ole boy” friends up in Alpharetta. No siree Bob, Elgart isn’t going to do anything to upset the good ole’ boys in Alpharetta. That would be beyond the pale (pun intended)

PS (Just for you Catlady.) The use of Catlady’s quote does not imply in any way, shape, or form agreement with the views expressed by Attn: Clayton Parents LOL

By Lee

February 25, 2008 11:04 PM | Link to this

Is it me, or is this talk about CC students losing HOPE a smoke screen? The way I read this, it seems that they can still get HOPE…

TITLE 20. EDUCATION
CHAPTER 3. POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
ARTICLE 7. SCHOLARSHIPS, LOANS, AND GRANTS
PART 7. HOPE SCHOLARSHIPS AND GRANTS

O.C.G.A. § 20-3-519.2 (2007)

§ 20-3-519.2. Eligibility requirements for a HOPE scholarship at a public postsecondary institution; scholarship amount

(a) To be eligible for a HOPE scholarship, an entering freshman student seeking an associate or baccalaureate degree at an eligible public postsecondary institution shall:

(1) Meet residency requirements by meeting the requirements to be classified as a legal resident of Georgia as established by the program regulations promulgated by the Georgia Student Finance Commission which shall be based upon the in-state tuition policy of the board of regents and the in-state tuition guidelines set by the Department of Technical and Adult Education;

(2) Meet achievement standards by:

(A) Having graduated from an eligible high school while meeting the curriculum requirements of his or her program of study in 1993 or thereafter and meeting the requirements set out in the applicable subsection and paragraph of Code Section 20-2-157; or (B) In the case of a student who is otherwise qualified but: (i) Did not graduate from high school or complete a home study program meeting the requirements of subsection (c) of Code Section 20-2-690, having received the general educational development (GED) diploma awarded by the Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education after June 30, 1993, provided that such student shall only be eligible for a HOPE scholarship pursuant to subsection (e) of this Code section; (ii) Completed a home study program meeting the requirements of subsection (c) of Code Section 20-2-690 in lieu of graduating from an eligible high school, earning a cumulative grade point average of at least 3.0 at an eligible public postsecondary institution at the end of the quarter or semester in which the student has attempted 45 quarter hours or 30 semester hours, provided that such student shall be eligible to receive a retroactive HOPE scholarship for such student's freshman year to be paid at the end of the freshman year; or (iii) Graduated from a high school which is not an eligible high school, earning a cumulative grade point average of at least 3.0 at an eligible public postsecondary institution at the end of the quarter or semester in which the student has attempted 45 quarter hours or 30 semester hours, provided that such student shall be eligible to receive a retroactive HOPE scholarship for such student's freshman year to be paid at the end of the freshman year; and

(3) Meet enrollment standards by being admitted, enrolled, and classified as an undergraduate student in a matriculated status.

By jim d

February 26, 2008 7:08 AM | Link to this

Since I was unable to post on a previous blog regarding discipline I will share this sad story here.

Sit still little ones

By Vince

February 26, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

ATTN Clayton Parents…

smokecreens, smokescreens,….

I have repeatedly addressed your concerns of omissions in the SACS report in previous posts. You have chosen to ignore them. The SACs report is not biased.

The silliness of GAE vs. MACE has got to stop. Your reasoning is based on a complete fallacy. Your philosophy that teachers and administrators are adversaries is completely flawed. They are teammates. When an administrator corrects the bad behavior of a teacher it doesn’t mean they are wrong or bad administrators. It’s much like a coach correcting a player or a parent correcting a child. Sometimes administrators get “corrected” by their supervisors. It’s the way the world works. THAT’S why PAGE and GAE accept both groups. They see the light.

The pitiful atempt to paint the SACS report as racial is so very sad. Please witness Dekalb, Atlanta and dozens of majority African American school districts in Georgia that have SACS’ blessing.

Finally, just for fun, let’s assume that you and your cronies continue to fight SACS. Let’s even suppose you prove the report is biased. You get to say, “Yippee, we’re still on the Board and we proved we were right”….and SACS pulls its accreditation.

Gee, what a great victory!

By WFC

February 26, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

I’m not knowledgeable about the specifics of the Clayton county situation so I won’t comment on those specifics. However, I do know this after 31 years as a teacher and administrator:

For a SACS committee to advise loss of accreditation is almost unheard of. SACS is usually a “see no evil, hear no evil” rubber stamp process.

The “Board of Education” system of governance for schools is archaic. If you want to see an exercise in befuddled pomposity, watch the Fulton County Board of Ed in “action” on the Comcast education channel.

By catlady

February 26, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Attn: I appreciate the disclaimer.

Re the research Lee did on eligibility for HOPe: it appears that if your do not graduate from an “eligible” high school, you can still qualify for HOPe? I am guessing that “eligible” means SACS accredited? IF those suppositions are true, losing SACS accreditation does not have the sort of impact touted on HOPe for Clayton County students. I wish someone with more real knowledge of the law would comment and clarify. IMHO, there has been a lot of fear-mongering on the problems Clayton Co kids face if they lose accreditation. Are the dire circumstances that have been repeatedly listed TRUE or not?

I can remember when not every high school had SACS accreditation, and darned few elementary schools did. I am not sure WFC’s characterization of “rubber stamp” is too far off. yeah, there is some paper work you have to fill out and other things you have to purchase (such as faculty and community surveys by approved companies) but based on my experience you would have to have very egegious problems to not get accreditation. i have seen SACS wielded like a hob nailed boot in the past to “bring in line” certain people, also. It used to be a well-thought-of regional accrediting agency.

All this is just my opinion and based only on what I have seen for the last 34 years, and not reflective of the “truth”. (my disclaimer) Taxes, tag, and title are additional.

By Attn: Clayton Parents

February 26, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

“When an administrator corrects the bad behavior of a teacher it doesn’t mean they are wrong or bad administrators.”

But when an administrator fails to correct the behavior of students, it does mean they are wrong.

And the end result? 3,000+ documented fights in Clayton. The ONLY way that occurs is that adults teach children (through LACK of consequences) that this is acceptable behavior (because administrators are afraid of being labeled a “persistently dangerous school” under No Child Left Behind among one of the many reasons.)

As to your retort that the SACS report is not biased. Yeah I guess the Catholic Church wasn’t “biased” against the findings of Galileo either.

Sorry, we don’t Pope Elgart to come to Clayton to decide who he wants on the board. That job, for better or worse, is for the voters to decide.

And what happens when voters finally realize (as is starting to happen) just how biased the SACS report is? No it doesn’t mean “problem solved” (and I have NEVER implied that). It means it’s time to seek an objective analysis from an accreditation agency that doesn’t have a (not so hidden) agenda.

Finally, you want MACE and the GAE to “stop”? Ask GAE if they are willing to no longer donate campaign funds or endorse candidates in school board races. Good luck on that one.

By Vince

February 26, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

Attn clayton parents:

There is an old proverb that states “Arrogance diminishes wisdom.”

Hmmm….

By posterchild

February 27, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

On the flipside of the students, how would this situation affect teachers? Would it? Is there a retirement or pay issue at hand? I know Clayton’s contracts were just issued. Could be interesting…

By Attn: Clayton Parents

February 27, 2008 9:45 PM | Link to this

So Mark Elgart says Michelle Strong “voted to give her husband a job”? Not according to the minutes of the school board meetings!!!! Again, another documented error. The buzz is that people are FINALLY starting to see that this report truly is nothing more that Elgart’s folly.

The question still remains as to the “why” and the “who” Elgart is serving. (Although with ZERO mention in twenty seven pages, it’s a good bet Ericka Davis is smack in the middle of the “who”.) Now we know the “why” isn’t, “objectivity” and the “who” sure isn’t “the children”.

I also hear that the AJC reporter “covering” the story has been given the board minutes, repudiating the alleged vote, but refuses to report on THAT.

Another “why” Clayton parents deserve an answer to.